Short answer: Casper is a situational judgement test (SJT) with 15 scenarios: nine typed and six video (about two minutes to think and two to answer). Prepare by building an experience bank in October, breaking scenarios down as stakeholders → principle balanced with empathy → stepwise action, and practising under timed conditions.
Key points
- 15 scenarios = 9 typed + 6 video.
- At Western Engineering, the situational test and supplementary material carry about 40% of the weight.
- Common scenarios: team conflict, ethical dilemmas, sudden resource changes, critical feedback.
- Two-minute video: 0:00–0:25 situation and task, 0:25–1:25 action, 1:25–1:40 result, 1:40–2:00 reflection.
- Typed answers should get to the point and focus on one role.
1. The Full Casper Process and Preparation Timeline
1.1 Registration and planning
In the supplementary assessment for Western Engineering and related top engineering and health sciences programs, the Casper situational judgement test (SJT) and the video interview are the main ways to assess non-academic qualities. To avoid a rushed sitting near the deadline, build a clear timeline early.
The table below shows the stages from early preparation to the formal test:
| Stage | Timing | Core tasks |
|---|---|---|
| Stage 1: confirm your direction and deadlines | September – early October | • Confirm Western Engineering's requirements and the deadlines for the supplementary and video components. • Identify the core assessment dimensions of the situational test and which typed and video sections you must complete. |
| Stage 2: early planning and reviewing experience | Mid-October – November (the best starting point) | • Start early: begin in October rather than leaving it until December or January. • Review your past experiences and build a structured experience bank with real examples of team conflict, leadership, failure and reflection. |
| Stage 3: practice and skill building | November – December | • Practise in a simulator under real conditions: timed, with no retakes. • Record audio or video to assess your pace, body language and logic objectively, and correct as you go. |
| Stage 4: the formal test | December – January (before the deadline) | • Check your equipment (camera, microphone, network). • Sit the formal test in a quiet room with good light, so your answers are clear, authentic and logical. |
Expert strategic view: preparing in October vs. cramming in December or January
- Advantages of starting in October: you have time to gather professional feedback, revise your experience bank repeatedly and build confidence through practice. "Confidence comes from preparation, not luck." Early preparation gives your answers depth of self-awareness and logical clarity.
- Disadvantages of cramming in December or January: many applicants badly underestimate the time needed to express situations and reflect on them. They end up rewriting late at night and rushing to find references near the deadline. Last-minute preparation tends to produce a "settle for less" attitude, with perfunctory answers and shallow logic, and it can cost you an offer.
1.2 Format of the test
The standard Casper test is a situational judgement test (SJT) with 15 scenarios, in two response modes:
- Typed responses: 9 scenarios. Each gives a passage or a short video, followed by several open questions, which you type in a strictly limited time.
- Video responses: 6 scenarios. After reading or watching each one, you have about 2 minutes to prepare, then about 2 minutes to answer on camera.
Clarifying the platform and Western Engineering's assessment
It's worth being clear on one point: Casper is a standardised situational test widely used in health sciences and interdisciplinary assessment. Western Engineering's supplementary video interview, often delivered on Kira Talent or an internal school simulator, may differ slightly in timing rules and how questions are presented. But the underlying assessment standards are the same: reviewers use the same 1–5 competency scale and look for STAR logic, improvised thinking under pressure and authentic, non-formulaic expression.
The weight of the test in admissions
At Western Engineering, many applicants have averages of 90% or 95%+ that look almost identical. Grades alone can no longer separate them. The situational test and supplementary materials carry about 40% of the decision.
Assessors don't score you on academic knowledge. They look at non-academic qualities:
- Thinking and calm communication under pressure: whether you stay composed and explain your decision clearly in high-pressure situations, with time limits and uncertainty.
- Perspective-taking: whether you can identify the positions and real needs of different stakeholders in a complicated conflict.
- Self-awareness and depth of reflection: whether you can draw out a mature change in thinking and behaviour from past mistakes or friction.
2. The Core Dimensions the Test Assesses
2.1 Core soft skills
A situational judgement test aims to assess your overall soft skills through concrete behaviour and decisions. The table below sets out ten core dimensions:
| Dimension | What it means | How it shows up in a situational answer |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Empathy and perspective-taking | Thinking from another person's position and caring about their feelings, views and background. | When there's friction between people, you don't jump to conclusions or criticise. You look for the difficulties and motives behind the other person's position. |
| 2. Ethics and morals | Holding to integrity and moral limits, with a real understanding of fairness, academic integrity and social responsibility. | When you face plagiarism, a conflict of interest or a breach of rules, you stand by principle and propose a fair, humane solution. |
| 3. Communication clarity | Expressing ideas precisely and concisely, controlling pace and tone, without relying on empty phrases. | Your answer gets to the point, cuts the excess and presents a clear line of logic within the word or time limit. |
| 4. Critical thinking and problem solving | Analysing a complex situation objectively on the facts, identifying the core conflict and building a workable plan. | You weigh the competing demands, consider the risks and side effects, and set out a sensible sequence of steps. |
| 5. Leadership and autonomy | Taking responsibility without waiting to be told, and guiding a team forward rather than giving orders or micromanaging. | When a project stalls or hits a deadlock, you step up to restore order and empower the team through trust and delegation. |
| 6. Teamwork and conflict resolution | Making collaboration work in a team with diverse backgrounds and resolving disagreements effectively. | When people start arguing, you break the emotional cycle, find a shared interest and push for a constructive compromise. |
| 7. Adaptability and stress management | Staying steady and adjusting your strategy when things change suddenly, resources shrink or pressure rises. | When something unexpected happens (a plan fails, a budget is cut), you don't panic and you quickly weigh alternatives. |
| 8. Self-reflection and personal growth | Honestly analysing your own shortcomings and mistakes, and showing a real change in thinking and lasting improvement in behaviour. | You don't hide past mistakes. You say clearly what went wrong at the time and how the experience changed what you do now. |
| 9. Resilience | Persisting through failure, criticism or hardship, and learning from it. | After an experiment fails or a proposal is turned down, you treat it as a chance to learn and redesign, rather than giving up. |
| 10. Resourcefulness and initiative | Finding solutions and drawing in outside support when resources are limited or information is incomplete. | You don't wait for instructions. You pull together useful resources across disciplines or relationships and solve a real problem creatively. |
2.2 Types of scenario and how to analyse them
Situational tests, whether typed or video, usually fall into a few typical triggers:
- Team conflict and competing interests: serious disagreement within the team, uneven workloads, or a team member who falls behind for personal reasons.
- Ethical and integrity dilemmas: discovering that a peer has committed academic misconduct, broken rules or faced a business-ethics conflict.
- Resource limits and sudden change: a project budget is cut suddenly, time runs short or a key piece of equipment fails.
- Receiving critical feedback: harsh criticism from a mentor or peer, where you need to show how you respond and adjust.
A logic for breaking down the core conflict
The first step in any scenario is to pin down the core conflict behind it. Avoid simply judging things as black or white. Use this progression:
- Step 1: identify the stakeholders and their core positions. Who is affected? What are each party's basic needs and hidden needs?
- Step 2: balance principle and empathy. How can you uphold the moral or rule-based limit while still understanding and respecting the person involved?
- Step 3: take a stepwise course of action. Talk to the person privately first to understand what happened, gather objective facts, then propose a constructive solution. Avoid rushing to report or publicly accuse.
3. A High-Scoring Framework: STAR and Deep Reflection
3.1 STAR structure and time or word allocation
When answering a situational question, use the STAR+T framework to keep your answer structured and stop nerves from making you ramble.
For a 2-minute video answer or a timed typed answer, use this golden split:
- Situation (10–15%): in a sentence or two, set out the background and core context. Don't spend too long on background details.
- Task (10–15%): name the central conflict you had to resolve, the difficulty you faced or your specific responsibility.
- Action (about 50%, the core): describe the specific steps you took and the reasoning behind them. Say clearly what you did, why you did it and how you balanced the interests of others.
- Result (about 10%): describe the objective output, measurable impact or improvement the action brought.
- Takeaway/Reflection (15–20%, the main source of extra points): always add real reflection after the result. Explain how the experience changed your perspective, which core values it built and how you apply them in your later behaviour.
Timing guide for a 2-minute video answer:
- 0:00 – 0:25 → cover S (situation) and T (task) and get to the core quickly.
- 0:25 – 1:25 → develop A (actions and their reasoning), showing how you thought it through.
- 1:25 – 1:40 → summarise R (the objective result).
- 1:40 – 2:00 → move to T (takeaway: lasting change in your reflection and behaviour).
3.2 Bridging the translation gap and showing, not telling
Assessors read hundreds of answers a day, and they've become immune to empty self-declarations such as "I'm a very empathetic leader" or "I have excellent communication skills." High-scoring answers close the translation gap: they move from simply listing what you did to explaining how the experience fundamentally reshaped your thinking, core values and later behaviour.
Expert line: "Sound real, not just impressive."
The depth ladder (Levels 1 to 5)
- Level 1 (shallow, low score):
- Features: empty phrases, no concrete behaviour, no reflection.
- Example: "I'm a very empathetic leader with excellent communication skills. When the team disagreed, I showed strong communication and solved the problem, and the project was a huge success."
- Level 3 (adequate, medium):
- Features: a specific event and action with basic logic, but without deep self-awareness or a lasting change in behaviour.
- Example: "In a group project, two members argued because the work was unevenly split. I called a meeting, heard both sides, redistributed the tasks, and we finished the report on time. That taught me how important teamwork is."
- Level 5 (deep reflection, the high-score benchmark, drawn from real engineering and community cases):
- Features: real friction in the situation, clear reasons for your decisions, the humility to admit a blind spot (vulnerability), and a lasting change in behaviour.
- Engineering and community example: "When our high school robotics team faced a halt after its sponsorship money fell through, my first instinct was to stay up all night doing every design myself. I quickly realised that this was making the rest of the team feel left out. So I changed approach and called an open meeting to be honest about our financial situation. Inspired by that, rather than dwelling on complaints, I led the team to use open-source models to 3D-print a low-cost prosthetic glove for a child in our community who was born with a limb difference. That experience closed my own translation gap. I realised real engineering leadership isn't carrying everything alone or controlling the situation; it's building a structure where everyone can contribute. Since then, whenever I face a resource-limited, high-pressure situation, my first move is to start open communication and look for collaboration across disciplines."
🎯 Practise as you read: record one answer now and see which band you're in. Try a timed MockView mock interview →
🎯 Practise as you read: record one answer now and see which band you're in. Try a timed MockView mock interview →
4. Scoring (1–5) and Practical Tips for Video and Typed Answers
4.1 The official 1–5 scale
Assessors score each answer independently on a 1-to-5 scale:
| Score | Official criteria | Typical answer |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Vague and shallow, with no self-awareness or real reflection. | Very general; no clear sense of your own contribution, no concrete actions, and no reflection or learning at all. |
| 2 | Limited detail, not fully answering the question. | Thin on specifics; not quite on point; little understanding of other perspectives; little reflection, or reflection that isn't linked to personal growth. |
| 3 | Clear and adequate, with basic adaptability and insight. | A clear, relevant example; reasonable adaptability; some insight into what was learned, with an initial connection to personal growth. |
| 4 | Thoughtful and proactive, with strong ownership and deliberate judgement. | A considered, specific example; strong ownership, adaptability and a real understanding of others' views; reflection that clearly explains how the experience shaped a new perspective or behaviour. |
| 5 | Vivid, authentic and highly self-aware, with composure. | A vivid, real and deeply reflective example; maturity, self-direction and creativity; excellent composure in high-pressure or complicated situations; a lasting change in behaviour and perspective. |
4.2 Video answers: practical control
In a video answer, delivery and content matter equally. Assessors watch how you think and communicate under pressure through the camera.
Delivery elements and techniques
- Eye contact: look directly into the camera lens, not at yourself on screen or at notes on the side. This conveys confidence and sincerity.
- Energy and expression: keep a natural facial expression and moderate warmth. Avoid a blank face or a flat, monotone voice.
- Clarity and gestures: keep a steady, moderate pace and use natural gestures to support your logic.
- Control pauses and remove filler: use a short pause (one second of calm thought) instead of "um," "ah" or "you know." A short pause shows composure and thought, while rushing shows nerves.
Warning: never recite or read a pre-written script. Assessors can spot mechanical delivery within seconds. Reciting causes a flat tone, wandering eyes and pauses in odd places. Assessors will immediately judge the answer as inauthentic, and your score will drop.
4.3 Typed answers: concise expression
Typed answers operate under very tight time limits, so the key strategy is cutting the fluff:
- Stay focused, and don't cram in too many activities: in practice, squeezing five or more clubs or activities into a few hundred words makes the answer superficial and forgettable. Focusing on one core role with concrete results works far better than listing ten brief experiences.
- Get to the point and cut the padding: drop long, formulaic openers (such as "This is a very interesting and complex moral question, and I need to think carefully…") and go straight to a concrete solution.
- Drop empty buzzwords: avoid stacking "passion," "strong communication" or "great leader" without examples to back them up.
- Use logical connectors to tie it together: words like "First," "Because of…" and "Therefore" show a clear line of reasoning.
5. Dos & Don'ts for Preparation
5.1 Dos
- Build your experience bank and T-model early: in the early stage, build an experience bank shaped like a T: wide range of involvement across the top (breadth), and deep, real impact in 1–2 core anchor projects (depth). Review the last two to three years for real conflicts, lessons from failure, criticism you've received and times you took the lead, and know the details and reflections of each case well.
- Practise in a realistic simulator: record audio or video under timed conditions with no retakes. Check your pacing, tone and logic objectively, and adjust with data.
- Find one reliable professional source of guidance (single source of truth): avoid asking too many people with conflicting views, such as parents, classmates and online forums. Too many voices leave your answers without a clear strategy or personal character. One reliable professional guide keeps preparation efficient and consistent.
- Show your real self and genuine feeling (authenticity and vulnerability): bring out the values you hold, admit past shortcomings and confusion, and focus on real behaviour change and personal growth.
5.2 Don'ts
- Don't memorise a script word for word: don't try to recite pre-written model answers. Reciting flattens your tone, makes your eyes wander and badly damages authenticity.
- Don't stack empty phrases: avoid trendy words that lack examples. Unsupported claims count as no answer at all to an assessor.
- Don't lean too heavily on AI to edit your writing: over-editing with AI tools erases your real voice and makes your answers flat, mechanical and generic.
- Don't cram at the last minute or procrastinate: don't leave preparation until December or January. Cramming inevitably produces shallow answers and muddled logic, and it's a common route to the kinds of mistakes that become admission killers.
FAQ
How is the Casper test structured?
Fifteen scenarios: nine with typed responses and six with video responses. Video questions give about two minutes to prepare and two minutes to answer.
How is Casper different from a Kira interview?
The timing rules and question format can differ, but the underlying assessment is similar. Both look at STAR logic, improvised thinking under pressure and authentic expression.
How should I answer an ethical dilemma?
Don't think in black and white. First identify each party's position and needs, then find a balance between holding to principle and understanding the person involved. In action, talk privately first and gather facts before proposing a constructive solution.
When should I start preparing for Casper?
Start building your experience bank in mid-October, practise in November and December, and sit the formal test before the deadline in December or January.
Related reading
- The Complete Guide to Video Interview Tips for Canadian Universities: How Kira Is Scored, Three Ways to Lose Points and a Full-Marks Framework
- Getting Into Canada's Top Engineering Schools 2026/2027: Courses, Averages and Supplementary Applications at UofT, Waterloo and McMaster
- Direct-Entry Medicine in the UK and Ireland: UCAS, UCAT, MMI and Planning to Practise in Canada
FAQ
How is Casper structured?
Fifteen scenarios: nine with typed responses and six with video responses, each video with about two minutes to think and two to answer.
How does Casper differ from a Kira interview?
Timing and format may differ, but the underlying assessment is similar: STAR logic, thinking under pressure and authentic communication.
How do I answer an ethical dilemma?
Avoid black-and-white answers. Identify each party's position and needs, balance principle with empathy, then act stepwise: talk privately, gather facts, propose a constructive solution.
When should I start preparing?
Build your experience bank from mid-October, practise in November and December, and take the test before the deadline in December or January.
Related reading
- Video Interview Tips for Canadian Universities: How Kira Is Scored, Three Ways to Lose Points and a Full-Marks Framework
- Getting Into Canada's Top Engineering Schools 2026/2027: Courses, Averages and Supplementary Applications at UofT, Waterloo and McMaster
- Direct-Entry Medicine in the UK and Ireland: UCAS, UCAT, MMI and Planning to Practise in Canada
Next step: from understanding to practised
Reading the method is the first step. Your score depends on how often you've practised under real timing, and whether someone tells you what to fix.
🎯 Practise on your own: a full MockView mock
MockView is Edmoat's AI mock interview tool. It follows your target school's real format (question types, prep time, answer length and word limits), scores you on that school's rubric, quotes your own words back to show what to fix, and gives you English phrasing you can say out loud.
Casper's video scenarios are also 2-minute timed answers, so MockView works well for practising timed delivery and STAR structure.
Start a MockView mock interview →
👩🏫 Improve faster: book a 1:1 consultation
An Edmoat advisor can be your single source of truth: help you build your story bank, sharpen your writing and run one-on-one mocks for Casper scenarios, from first draft to submission.