CTAL-TM ISTQB Certified Tester Advanced Level Test Management (CTAL-TM) v3.0 Free Practice Exam Questions (2025 Updated)

Competence in Handling Non-Standard Requirements:

Methodical competence refers to the ability to systematically analyze and interpret information, even when it is unconventional or unstructured.

The tester needs to refine their skills in identifying and deriving testable requirements from the available data.

Evaluation of Options:

A(Professional competence) refers to domain knowledge but does not address the specific challenge.

Bis correct as it pertains to systematically working through unconventional requirements.

C(Social competence) andD(Personal competence) do not address the analytical challenge.

References and Syllabus Alignment:

Methodical competence is emphasized under "Test Management Skills" in the ISTQB syllabus (TM-3.1.1)​​​.

Context Analysis:

Requirements coverage must be defined during test planning to ensure tests align with all requirements from the start of the project.

Evaluation of Options:

A. Test planning:

Correct. Coverage goals are established during planning to define test objectives and scope.

B. Test monitoring:

Incorrect. Monitoring tracks progress but doesn’t define coverage.

C. Test execution:

Incorrect. Execution measures coverage but doesn’t define it.

D. Test completion:

Incorrect. Completion reviews coverage metrics but doesn’t define them.

Syllabus Alignment:

Test planning (TM-1.1.1) includes defining coverage goals and ensuring alignment with requirements.

Step by Step Comprehensive Detailed Explanation:

Definition of Cost of Quality (CoQ):CoQ is composed of four components:

Prevention Costs:Costs related to activities to prevent defects (e.g., training, quality planning).

Appraisal Costs:Costs associated with evaluating products to ensure defect-free delivery (e.g., testing).

Internal Failure Costs:Costs due to defects found before delivery to the customer (e.g., rework).

External Failure Costs:Costs from defects discovered after delivery (e.g., warranty claims, reputation damage).

Calculation Process:

Defect Prevention Cost:Given as $10,000 (fixed).

Appraisal Cost:$250 per defect for 200 defects = 250×200=50,000250 \times 200 = 50,000250×200=50,000.

Internal Failure Cost:$200 per defect for 200 defects = 200×200=40,000200 \times 200 = 40,000200×200=40,000.

External Failure Cost:$2,000 per defect for 100 defects = 2,000×100=200,0002,000 \times 100 = 200,0002,000×100=200,000.

Total CoQ:Adding all costs together:

Total CoQ=10,000+50,000+40,000+200,000=300,000.\text{Total CoQ} = 10,000 + 50,000 + 40,000 + 200,000 = 300,000.Total CoQ=10,000+50,000+40,000+200,000=300,000.

Correct Answer and Justification:The total cost is$300,000, making Option A the correct answer.

References and Documentation from Advanced Test Management:

ISTQB Advanced Test Management Syllabus v3.0, Section 2.2.2:This section emphasizes understanding and calculating the cost of quality by segregating it into the four components as seen above​​.

ATM Sample Exam Questions 2024 (Example Calculations):Highlights similar numerical examples to calculate CoQ​.

ISTQB Exam Structure Rules v1.9:Ensures alignment with K2-level understanding for cost analysis scenarios in test management​.

Understanding the IDEAL Model:

The IDEAL model (Initiating, Diagnosing, Establishing, Acting, Learning) is a framework for process improvement.

In this case, theLearningphase is missing, which involves evaluating the outcomes of implemented changes to identify what worked and what did not.

Evaluation of Options:

A(Diagnosing) andB(Establishing) refer to earlier stages of the model.

C(Acting) relates to implementing changes but does not address the lack of retrospective evaluation.

Dis correct as the problem lies in not assessing the success of past improvements.

References and Syllabus Alignment:

The IDEAL model is covered under "Improving the Testing Process" (TM-1.5.4) in the ISTQB syllabus

Context Analysis:

Long descriptive paragraphs are difficult to parse, even if they contain all necessary information.Developers need concise, structured information for quick understanding.

Evaluation of Options:

A. Instruct your team to make all defects high priority:

Incorrect. Changing priority does not address the clarity issue in defect reports.

B. Highlight all the information and walk through it with the developers:

Incorrect. This is time-consuming and not scalable as a general solution.

C. Email screenshots to developers in addition to attaching them to defect reports:

Incorrect. Duplication of information does not solve the clarity problem.

D. Separate out the steps to reproduce the defect in the description so it is clearer for the developers and easier to find:

Correct. Structuring defect reports improves clarity and makes them easier to process.

Syllabus Alignment:

ISTQB recommends clear and concise defect reports to facilitate understanding and resolution (TM-2.3.5).

Context Analysis:

The project described has teams using different methodologies (traditional vs. Agile) tailored to their needs.

The "fit for purpose" hybrid approach is explicitly designed to combine methodologies based on team and project requirements.

Evaluation of Options:

A. Sequential:

Incorrect. A sequential approach suggests a traditional waterfall-like model, not a hybrid.

B. Hybrid as a transition to Agile:

Incorrect. This term implies the entire project is transitioning to Agile, which is not the case here.

C. Agile:

Incorrect. Only the development team is Agile; the business team uses a traditional approach.

D. Hybrid as fit for purpose:

Correct. Combines the most effective aspects of both traditional and Agile methodologies to suit the project context.

Syllabus Alignment:

ISTQB defines hybrid models as combinations of methodologies tailored to specific project needs (TM-1.2.4).

Context Analysis:

Higher-than-expected defects in a high-risk area indicate the need for additional testing to mitigate potential impacts.

Evaluation of Options:

A. Reassess the risk with a higher likelihood number:

Incorrect. While reassessment is useful, immediate action should prioritize more testing.

B. Reassess the risk with a higher impact number:

Incorrect. The impact may already be known, and more testing is the next practical step.

C. Concentrate more testing in the area because the risk is clearly higher:

Correct. Addressing higher-than-expected defects through focused testing ensures risks are adequately mitigated.

D. Concentrate less testing in the area because the defects are already found:

Incorrect. Higher defects warrant more testing, not less.

Syllabus Alignment:

ISTQB highlights increasing test efforts in high-risk areas with higher-than-expected defect levels (TM-1.3.4).

End User Involvement in Testing Levels:

Acceptance testing involves validating the product with the end users to ensure it meets their needs and requirements.

It typically requires close coordination with end users for User Acceptance Testing (UAT).

Evaluation of Options:

A (Component testing)andB (Component Integration testing)do not involve end users, as these are technical-level testing activities.

C (System testing)focuses on the integrated system but does not require end-user participation.

Dis correct because acceptance testing involves direct collaboration with end users.

References and Syllabus Alignment:

Covered under "Test Levels and Objectives" in the ISTQB syllabus (TM-1.2.5)​​.

Context Analysis:

Agile emphasizes efficiency and collaboration. If a defect is quickly resolved within the same iteration, documenting it formally may not add value.

Evaluation of Options:

A. Never:

Incorrect. Agile allows flexibility; not all defects require formal reports.

B. If the defect can be fixed in the same iteration in which it was found:

Correct. Aligns with Agile principles of immediacy and adaptability, minimizing overhead (Syllabus section TM-1.2.4).

C. If the defect can be fixed in a later hardening sprint:

Incorrect. Documentation is needed if a defect remains unresolved within the iteration.

D. If the defect must be fixed by another team:

Incorrect. Clear documentation is critical for external team collaboration.

Syllabus Alignment:ISTQB Advanced Test Management highlights Agile principles, including flexibility in defect reporting based on project needs (TM-1.2.4).

Understanding SMART Goals:

SMART goals must be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound.

The goal "automate 90% of the manual regression tests before the product release date" may not beachievabledepending on the time constraints and resources available.

Evaluation of Options:

Ais correct because the issue lies in whether automating 90% is feasible within the timeline.

Bis incorrect as the goal is specific.

Cis incorrect because automating regression tests is relevant to reducing regressions.

Dis incorrect since the goal is measurable by the percentage of automation achieved.

References and Syllabus Alignment:

Aligned with ISTQB Advanced Test Management guidelines on goal setting and test automation strategies (TM-1.6.2)​​​.

Definition of Appraisal Costs:

Appraisal costs include expenses related to evaluating and testing the product to detect defects before release.

These include costs for dynamic testing, reviews, inspections, and validation activities.

Evaluation of Options:

Arefers to prevention costs, not appraisal.

Bis correct because dynamic testing is an appraisal activity.

Crefers to failure costs (internal/external), not appraisal.

Drelates to legal failure costs.

References and Syllabus Alignment:

Appraisal costs are outlined under "Cost of Quality" in ISTQB syllabus (TM-2.1.1)​​​.

Purpose of Retrospectives:

Retrospectives are team meetings aimed at reflecting on the work process to identify what went well (strengths) and areas that can be improved (opportunities).

This aligns with continuous process improvement practices.

Evaluation of Options:

A(Everyone shakes hands) is trivial and not a core activity.

B(Reviewing data collection methods) may be part of broader discussions but is not the primary focus.

Cis correct because it directly reflects retrospective goals.

D(Brainstorming solutions) typically occurs in follow-up sessions, not during the retrospective itself.

References and Syllabus Alignment:

Retrospective practices are emphasized in "Improving the Test Process" (TM-1.5.4) in the syllabus​​.

Cost of Quality Analysis:

The given table lists costs for defect prevention, appraisal, internal failure, and external failure.

Defect prevention cost is $50,000, while costs for appraisal, internal failures, and external failures are $250,000, $200,000, and $200,000, respectively.

The combined cost of internal and external failures is significantly high compared to defect prevention costs.

Defect Detection and Prevention (DDP):

DDP measures the effectiveness of defect prevention activities and early detection mechanisms.

In this case, 1,000 defects were caught before release (appraisal) and 100 defects escaped to production.

DDP = (Defects found before release / Total defects) = 1000 / (1000 + 100) = 90.91%.

While this DDP is relatively high, the costs of appraisal and failures indicate that prevention strategies need more investment.

Key Cost Drivers:

High internal and external failure costs indicate inefficiencies in earlier stages of quality assurance.

Shifting investments from appraisal and failure costs towards defect prevention would reduce the overall cost of quality.

Evaluating Options:

Option A ("More testing needed because DDP < 90%") is invalid since DDP is above 90%.

Option C ("The cost of testing is justified") does not address the imbalance between high failure costs and low prevention spending.

Option D ("More effort on appraisal") contradicts the cost-benefit focus of investing in prevention.

Option B is correct because enhancing defect prevention strategies will reduce downstream costs.

References and Syllabus Alignment:

This conclusion aligns with the ISTQB Advanced Test Management syllabus section on "Cost of Quality" and strategies to optimize testing investments. Specifically, prevention is emphasized as more cost-effective than appraisal and failure management​​​.

The objective isSpecific(usability),Measurable(compared with previous system),Achievable(if proper design and test resources are used), andRelevant(to user satisfaction). However, it lacks aclear time constraint per release, henceTimelyis not met in the S.M.A.R.T. sense.

This structure for goal-setting aligns with strategic planning principles in ISTQB where test objectives should be SMART to allow proper planning, estimation, and monitoring.

Understandingwhendefects are introduced supports process improvement at thecorrect lifecycle stage, such as improving requirements reviews or design practices.

“The analysis of when defects were introduced in the development lifecycle helps to identify weak points and improve development or test processes.”

—ISTQB CTFL Syllabus 2018, Section 5.6

Thus,Option Bis the best answer for guiding improvement.

In Agile, defects discovered within the same sprint may be fixed without formal reports, but:

“Defect reports are typically required for defects that cannot be fixed immediately, require additional discussion, or involve external parties.”

—ISTQB CTFL Syllabus 2018, Section 3.2.4

Thus,Option Ais the accurate and practical reflection of Agile defect handling.

Determining the cost of external failures involves analyzing the impact of defects that escape into production. This includes the direct costs associated with fixing the defects, as well as the indirect costs such as customer dissatisfaction, damage to the company’s reputation, and potential loss of business. By quantifying these costs, the Test Manager can illustrate the financial benefits of comprehensive testing in preventing high-cost external failures, thereby demonstrating its value as an investment rather than a cost overhead.