ISTQB CT-UT ISTQB Certified Tester Usability Tester Exam Practice Test

At an early development stage where only a rudimentary prototype exists, a usability review (e.g., expert or heuristic review) is the most effective method. It allows usability specialists to identify potential usability issues without the need for a fully functioning product. Reviews can provide immediate, actionable feedback to guide design improvements before moving into more resource-intensive usability testing. An unmoderated usability test (B) or lab test (D) may be impractical at this stage due to limited interactivity. A usability maturity assessment (C) evaluates organizational processes and is not applicable to evaluating a specific prototype.

Human-centered design, as defined by ISO 9241-210, emphasizes early user involvement, iterative design, and continuous usability evaluation. Option D aligns with this model as it begins with understanding user needs (interview users), proceeds through iterative prototyping (which allows for continuous improvement), and involves user evaluation. This ensures that the final product is shaped by real user input and feedback. Options A and B lack iteration and continuous evaluation, while option C, although partially aligned, lacks explicit user involvement in the evaluation process, focusing only on expert reviews.

SUS (System Usability Scale), SUMI (Software Usability Measurement Inventory), and WAMMI (Website Analysis and Measurement Inventory) are all validated, standardized usability questionnaires that support benchmarking. They allow comparison against known usability scores from a wide variety of systems. These instruments provide numeric scores that can be interpreted using benchmark datasets or industry standards. Therefore, all three—i, ii, and iii—are true, making D the correct answer.

The primary goal of usability testing is to observe and record user behavior while interacting with the system. A location where user actions cannot be seen or recorded (option A) completely undermines the test's purpose and is therefore not suitable.

While options B, C, and D are not ideal in all cases, they can still be valid settings depending on the context. Testing in a user’s natural environment (B) increases ecological validity. Remote testing via video link (C) is widely accepted. Testing in a public setting (D) can be useful for mobile apps or services intended for real-world use.

A usability evaluation is specifically designed to assess how real users interact with a software product. It focuses on effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction in completing tasks. This may involve usability testing, expert reviews, or heuristic evaluations. The goal is to identify any usability problems and understand user behavior during real use.

Option A (Accessibility evaluation) targets inclusivity for users with disabilities, not general user interaction. Option B (Usability maturity assessment) evaluates the organization’s usability practices, and Option C (Risk assessment) evaluates potential project or system risks. Only option D directly involves observing and measuring user interaction.

A usability test plan is a foundational document created before conducting usability testing. It outlines the objectives, scope, methodology, participants, tasks, and schedule for the testing activities. One of its essential components is the schedule, which details when and how test sessions will occur to ensure proper resource allocation and time management. Including a schedule helps coordinate between test moderators, participants, observers, and stakeholders, making the testing process organized and efficient.

While briefing instructions (Option B) may be related to the usability test, they are typically documented separately or included in participant materials rather than the formal test plan itself. The test plan should be concise and focused; it need not be overly elaborate or lengthy (Option C), as clarity and usability of the plan are more important than length. The results of the test sessions (Option D) are not included in the test plan but rather compiled afterward in a test report or analysis document.

Therefore, the correct statement is that the usability test plan contains a schedule, ensuring a structured timeline for the usability testing activities.

Formative usability evaluation is conducted during the development process to identify usability problems and improve the product iteratively. It is diagnostic and improvement-focused. Summative evaluation, on the other hand, is done after development to assess the final product’s usability, measuring how well it meets defined usability goals. Therefore, the correct distinction is that formative evaluation focuses on improvement, and summative evaluation assesses the outcome. This distinction aligns with widely accepted models such as those defined by ISO 9241-210 and usability.gov.

Usability labs provide a controlled environment that offers several advantages for observing and recording usability test sessions. Specifically, they allow for easy observation of participants (ii), standardized conditions for each session (iv), and facilitate audio and video recording for detailed analysis (v). However, the context is not natural (i), because the lab is an artificial setting rather than the user’s actual environment. Also, setting up a professional usability lab is not inexpensive (iii); it typically involves significant costs for equipment, space, and staffing. Therefore, options ii, iv, and v are true, while i and iii are false.

A usability test session is a controlled period during which a test participant performs tasks using the system under test while being observed by a moderator and sometimes additional stakeholders or observers. The goal is to understand how users interact with the interface and identify usability problems. Option A describes an individual task, not the whole session. Option C refers to a test plan or test script, and Option D describes a test technique rather than a usability session. Thus, option B provides the most accurate and comprehensive definition.

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) provide standards to ensure websites are accessible to people with disabilities. They specifically address:

i. Text resizability (SC 1.4.4),

iii. Text alternatives for non-text content (SC 1.1.1),

iv. Keyboard accessibility (SC 2.1.1),

v. Device independence, which includes not relying solely on mouse input.

Visually appealing design (ii) is not an accessibility requirement and is thus not a WCAG focus. The correct answer is D: i, iii, iv & v are true; ii is false.

The usability tester, often synonymous with the usability test moderator in practice, is primarily responsible for interacting directly with the test participants during the usability testing sessions. This role includes communicating with participants to guide them through test tasks, answering questions without leading responses, and ensuring the session runs smoothly. Effective communication is essential to facilitate participant comfort, elicit genuine user behaviors, and capture accurate usability data.

Performing the pre-session briefing (Option A) may be done by the usability tester but is often a shared responsibility or part of test facilitation protocols. Discussing findings (Option C) typically falls to analysts or usability experts after testing sessions are completed and data analyzed. Defining testing tasks (Option D) is usually done by test designers or analysts during test planning, not during the test execution.

Therefore, communicating with test participants during testing is a core, principal task of the usability tester role.

Positive usability findings play a key role in reinforcing what is working well in the user interface. They help:

A: Build developer confidence and soften criticism when pointing out issues.

C: Provide a complete picture of usability strengths and weaknesses.

D: Inform developers what should remain unchanged during redesign.

However, B is incorrect because justifying usability test costs should not rely solely on positive findings. Cost justification should come from the overall impact of usability on user satisfaction, performance, and business outcomes—not just good results.