In recent years, the Casper test, designed to screen medical school candidates, has come under scrutiny from both students and experts. McMaster University’s Faculty of Health Sciences created Casper exam to assess key “soft skills.” What citizens should probe for are skills of empathy, ethics, judgment and communication. Critics say that the $498 million test is built on flimsy evidence. They argue that it is inadequate for reliably predicting future success in a medical career.
Acuity Insights, the nonprofit that administers Casper, touts its adaptability. This private entity has received close to $2.5 million in taxpayer funds since 2018. The exam is not just gatekeeping medical schools, but nursing, dentistry, physical therapy and undergraduate programs. Applicants have to pay a $50 non-refundable fee to even register for the test. They will have to shell out an additional $18 per medical school to which they send scores.
The Casper test was specifically designed to assess candidates’ people skills and professionalism, key attributes to success in healthcare professions. It has nevertheless been roundly criticized for its lack of validity and reliability. Yet as the medical admissions landscape shifts, the questions about whether these types of assessments are the right thing to do become increasingly deafening.
Understanding the Casper Test
The Casper test is different in that it measures non-cognitive but essential characteristics that make a great healthcare professional. It accomplishes this by asking a robust battery of situational judgment questions. To compile that list, test takers respond to hypothetical scenarios, which are then scored by independent raters whose identities are kept secret from candidates.
Acuity Insights has underscored the value of pausing to consider the context of every response. The purpose of the test is to precisely bring raters’ attention to this important step. The company says this methodology allows them to presciently determine which students are going to be great physicians.
The test’s methodology raises concerns. Candidates do not get their actual score, but are ranked into one of four performance tiers. This lack of transparency frustrates many applicants, who feel that given the weight the test carries in admissions decisions, understanding their performance is crucial.
“I think we deserve to know [the exact percentile], considering how much weight it carries going into admissions.” – Soby
Criticism from Experts
Here are just a few quotes from experts leveled at the research backing the Casper test. Jennifer Cleland, a prominent researcher in medical education, stated that much of the supporting evidence is lacking in rigor and credibility. She described the studies backing the test as “not terribly high-quality” and emphasized that “there is no evidence that Casper predicts future performance.”
This skepticism extends beyond academic circles. Students who passed the test to become teachers talk about finding it an ineffective and unfair barrier. One student who passed the high-stakes test on their fourth try even recommended that it “be abolished,” underscoring the increasing frustration with the exam from hopeful applicants.
The process to develop the Casper test is a moving target. Medical schools are left to judge its purported advantages while wrestling with an increasing body of evidence casting doubt on its validity. The current controversy is a symptom of a larger issue at play with the rise of standardized testing in medical education.
“It’s important that those schools see the criticisms, and it’s also important that the public sees what’s going on.” – Soby
The Future of Medical School Admissions
This unexpected use of Casper has started an important conversation about how to best assess future healthcare providers. Many educators advocate for a more holistic approach to admissions that includes interviews, personal statements, and other assessments that provide a fuller picture of candidates’ qualifications.
Acuity Insights is committed to ensuring Casper serves as a valuable tool to screen applicants critically. Yet some experts would like to see it scrapped entirely until dramatic changes are made to how it’s validated.
While Acuity Insights maintains that Casper serves an essential role in screening applicants, experts urge caution in its continued use without substantial improvements in its validation processes.
“It disappoints me that something is so lacking in scholarship, lacking in rigour, robustness and credibility.” – Jennifer Cleland
