Research
Is CASPer Valid? What the Research Actually Shows
The evidence is mixed but meaningful. Peer-reviewed studies show CASPer has moderate ability to predict some later professional outcomes, such as the personal and professional sections of Canadian licensing exams, and it adds a little prediction beyond grades. Independent studies have also found score gaps between demographic groups at several US programs. CASPer is best understood as one useful but imperfect data point, which is how Acuity says most programs use it.
What “valid” means for a test like CASPer
People usually mean three different things when they ask whether CASPer is valid:
- Predictive validity: do higher scores go with better later performance, such as in clinical training or licensing exams?
- Reliability: would you get a similar score if you took it again?
- Fairness: do people with similar skills get similar scores regardless of background?
No admissions measure scores perfectly on all three, including grades, the MCAT and interviews. The useful question is how CASPer compares and where it falls short.
Where CASPer came from
Acuity's research overview says CASPer is a situational judgment test first developed by Dr. Kelly Dore and Dr. Harold Reiter at McMaster University, to give programs a reliable and valid measure of social intelligence and professionalism. Acuity publishes a technical manual and maintains a publications page listing peer-reviewed studies and conference presentations.
Much of the published evidence involves CASPer's developers or Acuity researchers. That does not make it wrong, but it is worth weighing alongside independent studies, which is why both are included below.
Does CASPer predict later performance?
Several studies find a link, with effects that are moderate rather than large:
| Study | Setting | Main finding | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dore et al., 2017, Advances in Health Sciences Education | 109 doctors who took CASPer when applying to medical school (Canada) | Moderate prediction of the personal and professional sections of Canadian licensing exams 3 to 6 years later (disattenuated r = 0.3 to 0.5). | Authors include CASPer's developers; small sample. |
| Roduta Roberts et al., 2024, BMC Medical Education | Occupational therapy program, University of Alberta | CASPer added to GPA in predicting clinical exam (OSCE) and fieldwork performance (adjusted R² up 3.2 percentage points). | Funded in part by an Acuity grant; one program. |
| Sivahop & Akerman, 2025, Journal of Physician Assistant Education | 131 physician assistant students, three cohorts (US) | A negative CASPer z-score was associated with receiving a professionalism infraction during the program. | Authors report no conflict; association, not causation. |
| Vinson et al., 2026, Medical Teacher | 508 medical students, University of Michigan | CASPer modestly improved models of communication and self-awareness assessments, but showed limited use for predicting professionalism lapses. | Independent; mixed result. |
The pattern is consistent: CASPer tends to predict communication and professional-skill outcomes better than knowledge outcomes, and it adds information that grades do not capture. The effects are modest, and some outcomes, such as professionalism lapses in one medical school, were not well predicted. For how programs weigh it, see how important your CASPer score is.
Is CASPer reliable?
Acuity's quartile article states that CASPer has relatively high test-retest reliability, so applicants who take more than one test can expect to score similarly. It also explains why quartiles can still change between tests: scores near a quartile boundary, a different applicant pool, or genuine improvement and familiarity with the format.
Part of the design aims at reliability: each scenario is scored by a different trained rater, and raters are monitored for consistency. Our guide to CASPer raters explains those checks. Acuity's detailed reliability figures are in its technical manual rather than its help articles, so we do not restate a coefficient here.
Is CASPer fair across demographic groups?
This is where the research disagrees most:
| Study | Setting | Main finding | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juster et al., 2019, Academic Medicine | 9,096 applicants, New York Medical College | Group differences were smaller or reversed for CASPer and MMI than for GPA and MCAT across nearly all demographic groups; results for low-income applicants were mixed. | Co-authors include CASPer's developers and an Altus (now Acuity) scientist. |
| Gustafson et al., 2023, PLoS One | 1,237 interviewed applicants, a public US medical school | Black, Native American and Hispanic applicants had significantly lower CASPer scores; authors concluded it may not reduce bias. | Independent; interviewed applicants only. |
| Rosales et al., 2024, Journal of Graduate Medical Education | 1,245 anesthesiology residency applicants | No sex difference, but White applicants scored higher than Black and Hispanic applicants, and US graduates higher than international graduates. No correlation with USMLE Step 1. | Independent; one residency program. |
| Moore et al., 2024, Journal of Academic Ophthalmology | 760 ophthalmology residency applicants | No gender difference, but under-represented and international graduates scored lower, with gaps larger than on Step 1 or 2. | Independent; one specialty match. |
| Lolar et al., 2026, Journal of Physician Assistant Education | Five application cycles at one PA program | Scores did not differ significantly by race or gender, but a hypothetical cut score at z = −1 would have reduced male and under-represented applicants in the interview pool. | Independent; shows how use can matter as much as the test. |
The earlier New York study found CASPer had smaller group differences than GPA and the MCAT. Later independent studies at other US programs, mostly residency applicants, found lower average scores for Black, Hispanic, under-represented and international applicants. The 2026 PA study adds a useful point: even without score gaps by race, a rigid cut-off changed who was invited to interview. Its authors recommended using CASPer within holistic review rather than as a strict threshold.
Acuity says its early research found the video-response format helped reduce demographic differences in performance. If English is your second language, our guide for non-native English speakers covers practical preparation.
A balanced verdict
- CASPer measures something real. It predicts some professional outcomes years later and adds information beyond grades.
- The effects are moderate. It is not a precise predictor of who will be a good clinician.
- Fairness depends on context. Results vary by program and applicant pool, and independent studies have found gaps that programs should take seriously.
- Use matters. CASPer as one factor in holistic review appears to carry less risk than a hard cut-off.
What this means for you as an applicant
Whatever you think of the research, if your program requires CASPer, your score counts. Two findings are actionable. First, Acuity's quartile article lists format familiarity as one reason applicants score higher, so practising under the real time limits is worthwhile. Second, raters reward substance, so clear decisions and reasoning matter more than polished language.
Start with the official practice test, then build speed and structure with timed scenarios. Our guide to whether CASPer prep is worth it covers what kinds of preparation help.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CASPer scientifically valid?+
Peer-reviewed studies show moderate predictive validity for some later professional outcomes, such as the personal and professional sections of Canadian licensing exams, and small added prediction beyond GPA. The evidence is meaningful but not conclusive, and results vary by program.
Is the CASPer test biased?+
The evidence is mixed. A 2019 study found smaller group differences for CASPer than for GPA and MCAT, while several later independent US studies found lower average scores for some under-represented and international applicants. How a program uses the score also affects outcomes.
Who created CASPer?+
Acuity says CASPer was first developed by Dr. Kelly Dore and Dr. Harold Reiter at McMaster University. It is now run by Acuity Insights.
Does CASPer predict who will be a good doctor?+
Only partly. Studies link it to some later outcomes, such as communication and professional-skill assessments, with moderate effect sizes. No single admissions measure predicts clinical performance precisely.
Sources and scope
Checked October 21, 2026 against Acuity's research overview, publications page, quartile article and video-format research note, and PubMed abstracts for each linked study. This is a selected summary, not a systematic review; we report each study's own conclusions and setting. CasperCoach sells CASPer preparation, is independent of Acuity Insights and has no role in any study cited.