iSQI CTFL-AT Certified Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester Exam Practice Test

The test charter for the exploratory testing session is focused on buying a bus ticket, not a parking ticket. Therefore, any defect related to the payment for parking ticket is out of scope for the given test charter. The other defects are related to the functionality, usability, or reliability of buying a bus ticket, which are in scope for the test charter. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester Extension Syllabus, Version 2014, Section 2.3.2 Exploratory Testing1, Section 2.3.2.1 Test Charter2; ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms, Version 3.2, 2017, Definition of Test Charter3

1: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester Extension Syllabus, Version 2014, Section 2.3.2 Exploratory Testing 2: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester Extension Syllabus, Version 2014, Section 2.3.2.1 Test Charter 3: [ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms, Version 3.2, 2017, Definition of Test Charter]

Independence in testing is the degree of separation between the person who tests something and the person who developed it. Independence can help to reduce bias, increase objectivity, and provide different viewpoints. However, independence also has some drawbacks, such as increased communication overhead, reduced collaboration, and delayed feedback. In agile projects, testers are usually embedded in the agile teams to perform many of the testing tasks, such as unit testing, integration testing, acceptance testing, etc. This provides a high level of collaboration and fast feedback, but also reduces the independence of the testers. Testers from an independent test team who do not get involved with the agile team, but are assigned to do System Testing once all sprints are completed, would provide the most independence for testers working with agile teams. However, this would also introduce many disadvantages, such as lack of alignment with the agile principles, loss of context and domain knowledge, delayed defect detection and resolution, and increased risk of missing customer expectations. References: ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus, Section 1.1.2, page 8; ASTQB Agile Tester Certification Resources, Section 1.1.2, page 8.

 Planning poker is a consensus-based technique for agile estimation, using a deck of cards with predefined numerical values, usually based on the Fibonacci sequence or a modified version12. Therefore, statement 1 is correct. A high test estimate usually means that the user story or task is too complex, ambiguous, or risky, and should be broken down into multiple smaller stories that are easier to understand and estimate13. Therefore, statement 3 is correct. The risk level of each backlog item should be decided before the poker session, as it can affect the estimation process and the prioritization of the work14. Therefore, statement 5 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect, as a low test estimate usually means that the user story or task is simple, clear, and well-defined, and does not need to be broken down further13. Statement 4 is incorrect, as planning poker can involve multiple rounds of estimation, reveal, and discussion, until the team reaches a consensus or agrees to defer the item12. References: 1: ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus, Section 3.3.1, Test Automation1; 2: ASTQB Agile Tester Certification Resources, Section 3.3.1, Test Automation2; 3: Planning Poker: An Agile Estimating and Planning Technique3; 4: Planning poker: The all-in strategy for Agile estimation - Asana4

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

FromCTFL-AT Syllabus v4.0, Section 3.2Test-Driven Development, and 1.3The Whole-Team Approach, testers:

"Collaborate in test-related activities including test case creation, exploratory testing, and user story clarification."

"Unit tests are typically the responsibility of developers, especially in TDD practices."

Therefore,Option Aisleast likely, asunit test tracking in TDDis primarily adeveloper responsibility, not a tester's routine task.

Options B, C, and D all describekey Agile tester activities, such asmaintaining regression tests,collaborating with developers, andparticipating in specification workshops (BDD/ATDD practices).

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

From theISTQB CTFL-AT Syllabus v4.0, Section 1.1Agile Software Development and the Agile Manifesto, the Agile approach is described as:

"Agile software development uses iterative and incremental development, where requirements and solutions evolve through collaboration between self-organizing and cross-functional teams."

Option C reflects this exact concept, highlighting both theiterative-incremental lifecycleand thecollaborative natureof Agile teams.

Option A refers specifically topair programming, a practice used inExtreme Programming (XP), but it’s not a definition of Agile as a whole.

Option B mistakenly describes asequential (Waterfall-like)iteration structure where testing is delayed.

Option D describes ahybrid or phased approach, not consistent with core Agile principles.

 According to the ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, one of the key principles of agile testing is that testers are integrated into the agile team and work closely with developers and other stakeholders. However, this does not mean that testers lose their independence or objectivity. Testers should still be able to provide an unbiased view of the quality of the software and challenge the assumptions and decisions made by the team. Therefore, option C is the best way for a test team to keep its independence when working in an agile development environment, as it allows testers to be part of the agile team, but also report to a different manager than the developers, who can support their professional development and ensure their independence. Option A is not a good way to keep independence, as it limits the transparency and collaboration between testers and developers, which are essential for agile testing. Option B is also not a good way to keep independence, as it creates a physical and organizational barrier between the test automation team and the agile development team, which can hinder communication and feedback. Option D is also not a good way to keep independence, as it creates an inconsistency and imbalance between the testers who are co-located with the agile development team and those who are not, which can affect the quality and efficiency of the testing process. References: ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 1.2.1, page 91; ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 1.2.2, page 101; ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 2.1.1, page 141; ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 2.2.1, page 161; ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 2.2.2, page 171.

 Equivalence partitioning is a black-box test design technique that divides the input domain of a system into classes of data from which test cases can be derived. The idea is that if a system works correctly for a representative value from an equivalence class, it will work correctly for all values from that class, and vice versa. Equivalence partitioning reduces the number of test cases by eliminating redundant ones. For the given user story, equivalence partitioning is the most suitable technique because it can test the different outcomes of the annual car tax calculation based on the power of the vehicle, which is the main input for the system. By testing one value from each partition, the tester can verify the functionality of the system and detect any errors in the calculation logic. The other techniques are not as suitable because they do not focus on the input domain of the system, but rather on the conditions, transitions, or scenarios that are not directly related to the user story. References:

: ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus, Version 2014, Section 2.2.2

: ASTQB Agile Tester Certification Resources, Agile Testing Foundations, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2

: 3

 A task management tool is a software application that helps agile teams plan, organize, and monitor their work. A task management tool typically allows the team to create, assign, prioritize, update, and track user stories, tests, and other tasks that are part of the agile project. A task management tool can also provide various views and reports to visualize the progress and status of the project, such as Kanban boards, burndown charts, velocity charts, etc. Some examples of task management tools are Jira, Trello, Asana, and Monday.com12345. References: ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus, Section 2.1.1, page 13; ASTQB Agile Tester Certification Resources, Section 2.1.1, page 13.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

FromCTFL-AT Syllabus v4.0, Section 5.4Progress Tracking, it explains:

"Burndown charts track completed story points, which are only counted when the entire user story is 'done'."

SinceT3 and T4 are not complete, and the user story is only complete whenall its tasks are done, thestory points are not yet burned. So,Option Cis correct.

Option Ais incorrect —partial completiondoes not burn partial story points.

Option Bmisrepresents the chart’s purpose —story pointsremain the unit.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

From theCTFL-AT Syllabus v4.0, Section 5.1, it states:

"The team uses the retrospective to review how they worked during the iteration, including planning accuracy and team collaboration, and to identify actionable improvements."

Thus,Option Dis correct — retrospectives help reflect on iterationplanning accuracy, team dynamics, andefficiencyto improve future iterations.

Option Ais incorrect — retrospectives aim to focus on what the teamcan improve, not just on external hindrances.

Option Bis false — Agile retrospectivesrequire follow-up, often in the form ofaction itemstracked in the next iteration.

Option Cis incorrect —Product Ownerand possibly others may contribute, depending on team context.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

FromCTFL-AT Syllabus v4.0, Section 1.2Fundamentals of Agile Software Development, it states:

"Kanban is a lean approach that uses visualization (typically via a task board) to manage work in progress and improve workflow. Unlike Scrum, iterations in Kanban are optional."

Thus,Option C (Kanban)is correct. It emphasizesvisualizationand doesnot require fixed-length iterations.

Option A (Scrum)is iteration-based.

Option B (Continuous integration)is a practice, not a development approach.

Option D (Slack)is a communication tool, not a methodology.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

From theCTFL-AT Syllabus v4.0, Section 1.3The Whole-Team Approach, it states:

"The whole-team approach involves all team members (including developers, testers, and business representatives) working together as a team, sharing responsibility for the quality of the product."

It also says:

"In Agile projects, the whole-team approach promotes collaboration and communication across roles to achieve common goals, including quality assurance."

Thus,Option Bis correct, as it captures thecollaborative nature and shared responsibilitythat the whole-team approach aims to foster.

Option Arefers toPlanning Poker or relative estimation, not directly the whole-team concept.

Option Cdescribes the"Three Cs" (Card, Conversation, Confirmation)model of user stories, not the whole-team approach specifically.

Option Dmisinterprets Agile; while team members are encouraged to becross-functional, deep expertise is still valued, and "generalist only" is not a requirement of the whole-team approach.

Acceptance test criteria are the conditions that a user story must satisfy to be accepted by the customer or the stakeholder. They are usually derived from the user story and its acceptance scenarios, and they should cover the functional and non-functional requirements of the user story. Acceptance test criteria should be clear, concise, testable, and agreed upon by the team and the customer or the stakeholder.

In this case, the user story describes the business rule for approving a loan request based on the customer’s income, repayment history, and loan amount. The user story also specifies the roles of the customer assistant and the bank manager in the process. Therefore, the acceptance test criteria should verify that the user story is implemented correctly and that the system behaves as expected for different scenarios and inputs.

The following test cases can be treated as acceptance test criteria for the above user story:

As a customer assistant I can log in to the system and check the history of the customer account for the last year. This test case verifies that the customer assistant can access the system and view the customer’s income information, which is one of the factors for approving the loan request.

As a customer assistant I can log in to the system and check the history of the customer debts and repayments. This test case verifies that the customer assistant can access the system and view the customer’s repayment history, which is another factor for approving the loan request.

As a bank manager I can log in to the system and receive the information of all requests waiting for approval. This test case verifies that the bank manager can access the system and see the list of loan requests that have been prepared by the customer assistant, and that the system provides the necessary information for each request.

As a bank manager I can log in to the system and decide whether to approve a loan for a customer. This test case verifies that the bank manager can access the system and perform the approval action for a loan request, and that the system applies the business rule correctly and updates the status of the request accordingly.

The following test cases cannot be treated as acceptance test criteria for the above user story:

As a customer assistant I can log in to the system and change my password. This test case is not related to the user story, as it does not verify any of the functional or non-functional requirements of the user story. It is a generic test case that applies to any user of the system, not specific to the customer assistant role or the loan approval process.

As a bank manager I can log in to the system within 10 seconds. This test case is not related to the user story, as it does not verify any of the functional or non-functional requirements of the user story. It is a performance test case that applies to any user of the system, not specific to the bank manager role or the loan approval process.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

FromCTFL-AT Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.1Acceptance Criteria and Testability, it states:

"Tests should directly address the acceptance criteria defined for a user story. Testers evaluate if the implemented feature meets the criteria, often using quantitative data like number of steps, time taken, or interaction patterns."

Theacceptance criterionspecifically refers tominimizing steps during checkout, soOption Dis most directly aligned with what needs to be tested.

Options A, B, and Care unrelated to the acceptance criterion’s goal of reducing abandonment due to complex checkout.

Risk-based testing fits well in Agile development processes, as risks are easy to identify when the work is divided into user stories. User stories are short descriptions of features or functionalities that are valuable to the customers or users. They help to define the scope and priority of the work in each iteration. By breaking down the work into user stories, the Agile team can identify the potential risks associated with each story, such as technical complexity, business criticality, or user feedback. The team can then prioritize the testing effort based on the risk level of each story, ensuring that the most important and risky features are tested first and thoroughly. Risk-based testing also helps to optimize the testing time and resources, as the team can focus on testing the most relevant aspects of the software, rather than testing everything equally. References: ISTQB Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus, Section 2.3.2, page 181; ISTQB Foundation Level Agile Tester Sample Exam Questions, Question 2.3.2-1, page 92

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

From theCTFL-AT Syllabus v4.0, Section 4.2Continuous Integration, it describes:

"A major benefit of continuous integration is the ability to detect integration problems, code defects, and broken builds early, allowing for faster resolution."

And:

"Continuous integration allows frequent builds and tests to be performed, helping to identify and isolate problems soon after they are introduced."

This directly confirms thatOption Ais the correct answer, highlighting thecore value of continuous integration:early detection and isolationof issues.

Option Bis incorrect — retrospectives remain essential in Agile regardless of CI.

Option Cis an Agile principle, but not adirect benefittied specifically to CI.

Option Doverstates the impact of CI — while CI may help communication, it does not eliminate communication problems by itself.

The best black box test design technique for verifying the accuracy of this user story is equivalence partitioning. Equivalence partitioning is a technique that divides the input domain of a system into classes or groups that are expected to behave similarly. By testing one value from each class, the tester can reduce the number of test cases while still achieving good coverage. In this case, the input domainof the system is the amount of income, which can be divided into classes based on the tax percentage applied to different income ranges. For example, if the tax percentage is 10% for income below 10,000, 20% for income between 10,000 and 20,000, and 30% for income above 20,000, then the equivalence classes are: low income (<10,000), medium income (10,000-20,000), and high income (>20,000). By testing one value from each class, such as 5,000, 15,000, and 25,000, the tester can verify that the system calculates the correct tax percentage for each income range. This technique is more efficient and effective than testing all possible values of income, or testing only one value of income, or testing the states of income entry, or testing the statements in income calculation. References: ISTQB Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus1, Section 2.3.1, page 19; ISTQB Foundation Level Agile Tester Extension Sample Exam Questions2, Question 5, page 6.

 Early and frequent feedback is one of the core values of Agile development. It helps the Agile team to deliver features with the highest business value first, to discover and resolve quality problems as soon as possible, to provide information on the team’s productivity and progress, and to ensure that the product meets the customer’s expectations and needs. However, early feedback does not necessarily decrease the amount of time needed for system testing, as system testing is still an important activity in Agile projects to verify the integration and functionality of the whole system. Early feedback may reduce the number of defects found in system testing, but it does not eliminate the need for system testing. References: ISTQB Foundation Level Agile Tester Extension Syllabus1, page 10; ISTQB Agile Tester Sample Exam2, question 11.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

From theCTFL-AT Syllabus v4.0, Section 4.2Continuous Integration, it states:

"Continuous integration involves integrating code into a shared repository several times a day. Each integration is verified by an automated build and automated tests."

Hence,Option D—at least once a day— correctly reflects best practice in continuous integration.

Option A(once per iteration) andB,Care far too infrequent to meet the goals of CI.

The objective is to detect integration issuesearly and often, which is only achievable throughdaily (or more frequent)integrations.

The 3C concept of user stories consists of three elements: card, conversation, and confirmation12. The card is a written description of the user story that captures the essence of the feature or functionality from the user’s perspective. The conversation is a dialogue between the product owner and the development team to clarify the details, assumptions, and expectations of the user story. The confirmation is a set of criteria or tests that verify that the user story is implemented correctly and meets the user’s needs12. Therefore, by applying the 3C concept, the correct statement is A, as the conversation should include the acceptance criteria discussion. This will help the team to understand the scope, priority, and value of the user story, as well as the conditions of satisfaction that the product owner expects12. The other statements are incorrect, as they violate the 3C concept. Statement B is wrong, as the card should contain the user story, not the requirements. The user story is a brief and informal way of expressing the user’s goal and benefit, while the requirements are more detailed and specific descriptions of how the software should work. The requirements can be added later as part of the conversation or confirmation12. Statement C is wrong, as the product owner has written a user story, but confirmation is still needed. The confirmation is a vital part of the 3C concept, as it ensures that the user story is testable, measurable, and verifiable. The confirmation also helps to avoid ambiguity, misunderstanding, or disagreement between the product owner and the development team12. Statement D is wrong, as the conversation is required and the team should not start developing without it. The conversation is an essential part of the 3C concept, as it allows the team to ask questions, share ideas, and collaborate with the product owner to refine the user story and reach a shared understanding. The conversation also helps to identify the dependencies, risks, and assumptions that may affect the implementation of the user story12. References: ISTQB Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus1, Section 2.2.1, page 16-17; Effective User Stories - 3C’s and INVEST Guide2, Section The 3 C’s (Card, Conversation, Confirmation) of User Stories.

Testers replace developers in writing unit test automation scripts. Comprehensive Explanation: The integration of development and testing activities in Agile projects is based on the principle of cross-functional teamwork, where all team members collaborate and share their skills and knowledge to achieve a common goal. In the context of testing, this means that testing is not seen as a separate activity or phase, but as an integral part of the development process. Therefore, the following sentences are correct:

While developers develop automated unit test scripts, testers write automated system level tests. This is an example of how developers and testers can work in parallel and complement each other’s testing efforts. Developers can focus on testing the internal quality of the code, while testers can focus on testing the external quality of the product.

Developers write acceptance criteria and test cases, together with testers. This is an example of how developers and testers can work together to define and verify the user requirements and expectations. Developers can provide their technical expertise and input, while testers can provide their business and user perspective and feedback.

Developers and testers may work as a pair to develop and test a feature. This is an example of how developers and testers can work closely and interactively to deliver a feature. Developers and testers can exchange ideas, suggestions, and information, and support each other in the coding and testing tasks.

The following sentence is incorrect:

Testers replace developers in writing unit test automation scripts. This is not a valid example of the integration of development and testing activities in Agile projects, because it implies that testers take over the responsibility of developers, rather than collaborate with them. Testers should not replace developers in writing unit test automation scripts, because developers have more knowledge and experience in coding and debugging, and because unit testing is an essential part of the development process. Testers should instead work with developers to ensure that the unit test automation scripts are adequate, effective, and maintainable. References: ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus1, Section 1.2.1, page 9; ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms2, version 4.0, pages 16 and 55.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

FromCTFL-AT Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.2Release and Iteration Planning, it describes Planning Poker as:

"Planning Poker involves group discussion, especially from the highest and lowest estimators, to ensure that different perspectives and assumptions are aligned, which leads to more accurate and shared understanding of the effort involved."

Thus,Option Cis correct — Team B usesdiscussion-based estimation, which is a corebenefitof Planning Poker.

Option Ais speculative — we cannot know the actual effort difference.

Option Bis incorrect — convergence without discussion may indicatelack of engagement or pressure to agree.

Option Dis false — Planning Poker isnot based on averaging, but onconsensus.

Test automation is essential for agile projects, as it enables fast and frequent feedback on the quality of the product. Without test automation, it would be very difficult to ensure high quality in an agile project, as manual testing would be too slow and costly to keep up with the pace of development12. Automated acceptance tests are one of the key types of test automation on agile projects, as they verify that the user stories are implemented correctly and that the product meets the customer’s expectations. Automated acceptance tests are run regularly as part of the continuous integration full system build, and the results provide feedback on the overall product quality12. Therefore, statements 2 and 5 are correct with regards to test automation on agile projects. References: 1: ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus, Section 3.3.1, Test Automation1; 2: ASTQB Agile Tester Certification Resources, Section 3.3.1, Test Automation2

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

FromCTFL-AT Syllabus v4.0, Section 4.3Test Automation and Continuous Integration, it states:

"Short iterations and continuous integration require well-designed automated test suites, and teams should adopt good practices for test design and implementation from the start."

OptionBis correct because it highlights theneed for proactive test design practicesto handle frequent changes — a key Agile challenge.

Option Amixes concepts:version controlrelates to code, not directly to regression management.

Option Cis incorrect — regressionrisk increaseswhen code is modified.

Option Dis misleading — tests may becomeobsoleteor needrefactoring, sono test is permanently untouchable.