Free ISTQB CTAL-TM Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 2

Challenges for Manual Testers Transitioning to Automation:

Manual testers often lack strong technical skills required for scripting. Tools withhigh usabilityandAI-assisted featuressimplify script creation and reduce the technical expertise needed.

Evaluation of Options:

A(Low license costs) is unrelated to aiding testers' technical capabilities.

B(Remote storage) is beneficial but does not address skill gaps.

C(High usability with AI-assisted object capture) directly helps by simplifying automation tasks.

D(Good reporting) is valuable but not relevant to skill transition.

References and Syllabus Alignment:

This matches tool evaluation criteria outlined in the ISTQB syllabus under "Test Tools" (TM-1.6.1)​​.

Context Analysis:

The scenario involves tight integration, architectural design, and data transformations, requiring detailed and structured approaches.

Access to architectural documents and experienced testers (former developers) aligns with model-based and white-box techniques.

Evaluation of Options:

A. Model-based and white-box:

Correct. Model-based testing leverages design documents, while white-box testing uses internal knowledge for detailed integration testing.

B. Experience-based and black-box:

Incorrect. This is less structured and doesn’t utilize available design documentation or tester expertise.

C. Risk-based and non-functional:

Incorrect. Risk-based testing focuses on high-priority areas but doesn’t leverage the design documents for integration specifics.

D. Requirements-based and functional:

Incorrect. While functional testing is relevant, requirements-based testing does not utilize internal system knowledge effectively.

Syllabus Alignment:

ISTQB emphasizes model-based and white-box testing as appropriate for systems with complex integrations (TM-1.2.6).

Purpose of the Question:

Identifying metrics to improve the defect reporting process by reducing ambiguities or improving accuracy.

Evaluation of Options:

A. Number of defect reports re-opened:

Incorrect. This reflects issues with defect resolution rather than reporting.

B. Number of defects in a particular area of the code:

Incorrect. This metric pertains to defect clustering, not the reporting process.

C. Number of defect reports rejected by the developers:

Correct. Rejected reports often indicate poor reporting quality (e.g., insufficient details, incorrect categorization), directly highlighting areas for improvement.

D. Number of defects found in a phase later than they were introduced:

Incorrect. This is a measure of defect detection efficiency, not reporting quality.

Syllabus Alignment:

The syllabus stresses the importance of using defect metrics to refine processes, including reporting accuracy (TM-2.3.5).

Context Analysis:

The test strategy defines thContext Analysis:

Monitoring code coverage is inherently tied to knowledge of the internal structure of the software, a characteristic of white-box testing.

Evaluation of Options:

A. Black-box:

Incorrect. Black-box testing focuses on functionality without knowledge of internal structures.

B. White-box:

Correct. White-box testing uses internal code knowledge to determine areas that need more coverage.

C. Functional:

Incorrect. Functional testing assesses functionality without inspecting internal code.

D. Non-functional:

Incorrect. Non-functional testing focuses on performance, usability, etc., not code coverage.

Syllabus Alignment:

ISTQB associates code coverage monitoring with white-box testing techniques (TM-1.2.6).

Common Risk Identification Techniques:

A test manager often relies on experience with similar projects to foresee risks related to technical complexity, domain challenges, or previous defects.

Other options listed are less effective for comprehensive risk identification.

Evaluation of Options:

A(Lines of code) andB(Function points) are quantitative measures, not directly tied to risk identification.

Cis correct as past experience is crucial for identifying risks early.

D(Record/playback tools) is irrelevant to risk analysis.

References and Syllabus Alignment:

Risk identification techniques are discussed under "Risk Management" (TM-1.3.1)​​.

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​​​.

Understanding the Defect Trend Gap:

A gap between "defects opened" and "defects closed" usually indicates defects that have been resolved (fixed) but are pending formal closure, often awaiting retesting or approval.

The trend convergence suggests the defect management process is effective, but some defects are still in the verification stage.

Evaluation of Options:

Ais incorrect: The gap does not indicate projected but unfound defects.

Cis incorrect: Regression defects would cause a divergence, not convergence, in trends.

Dis incorrect: Defects introduced to production are unrelated to the convergence.

Bis correct as it aligns with the standard defect lifecycle.

References and Syllabus Alignment:

This aligns with "Defect Management" in the ISTQB syllabus, emphasizing defect lifecycle tracking (TM-2.3.1)​​​.

Context Analysis:

Developers want to close defects unilaterally, while testers are concerned about unresolved or misunderstood issues being overlooked.

Defect closure requires validation that the fix is implemented and verified to prevent recurrence of the issue.

Evaluation of Options:

A. Only testers should be allowed to close defect reports:

Incorrect. This creates a bottleneck and removes shared accountability for quality.

B. Only management should be allowed to close defect reports:

Incorrect. Management involvement adds unnecessary delays and complexity.

C. No one should close a defect report until the release is completed and the product is successfully deployed to production:

Incorrect. Defects should be closed as they are fixed and tested to ensure progress is tracked.

D. Closure should only occur when a defect is fixed and tested:

Correct. Ensures collaboration between developers and testers to verify the resolution.

Syllabus Alignment:

The ISTQB syllabus emphasizes clear defect management processes, including closure after verification (TM-2.3.4).

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).

Documentation standards are not uniform across all test levels; they can differ based on the specific requirements of each level. For instance, unit testing may have different documentation needs compared to system testing. The ISTQB documentation standards recognize this variability and allow for flexibility to suit the context of the test level. This ensures that the documentation is appropriate for the objectives and constraints of each test level, providing clarity and efficiency in the testing process.