Try 30 free PSM II questions across the exam domains, with answers and explanations, then continue in PM Mastery.
This free full-length PSM II practice exam includes 30 original PM Mastery questions across the exam domains.
The questions are original PM Mastery practice questions aligned to the exam outline. They are not official exam questions and are not copied from any exam sponsor.
Official-count note: Scrum.org currently lists PSM II as 30 questions in 90 minutes with an 85% passing score, and notes that some questions provide partial credit. Use Scrum.org for final exam-day rules; use this page as an original full-length PM Mastery diagnostic.
Set a 90-minute timer and treat each scenario as an advanced Scrum Master decision. Before opening the explanation, write down why your answer improves empiricism, team self-management, facilitation, coaching, or organizational change.
Suggested timing checkpoints:
| Question range | Target elapsed time |
|---|---|
| 1-10 | 30 minutes |
| 11-20 | 60 minutes |
| 21-30 | 90 minutes |
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Issuer | Scrum.org |
| Exam route | PSM II |
| Official exam name | Scrum.org Professional Scrum Master II (PSM II) |
| Full-length set on this page | 30 questions |
| Exam time | 90 minutes |
| Topic areas represented | 5 |
| Topic | Approximate official weight | Questions used |
|---|---|---|
| Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework | 21% | 6 |
| Scrum Master Accountability and Service | 21% | 6 |
| Developing People and Teams | 24% | 7 |
| Product, Stakeholder, and Technical-Risk Support | 18% | 6 |
| Evolving the Agile Organization | 16% | 5 |
Topic: Product, Stakeholder, and Technical-Risk Support
A company bonus policy rewards teams for delivering all promised features by quarter end. The Scrum Team’s Definition of Done includes automated performance testing. In the last Sprint before quarter close, the Developers say they can hit the date only by skipping those tests, and the Product Owner asks the Scrum Master to “keep this off the dashboard until we release.” Select ONE: which accountability boundary best fits this situation?
Best answer: C
What this tests: Product, Stakeholder, and Technical-Risk Support
Explanation: The key boundary is that Developers determine whether work meets the Definition of Done; untested work is not Done. When incentives or delivery pressure encourage hiding that fact, the Scrum Master should make the risk transparent and help remove the organizational pressure causing it.
This scenario is about preserving transparency and accountability under delivery pressure. The Definition of Done is the Increment’s quality commitment, and Developers are accountable for instilling quality and determining whether selected work is actually Done. The Product Owner cannot waive the Definition of Done for convenience, and the Scrum Master does not approve technical exceptions. Because the bonus policy and the request to hide the issue encourage technical risk concealment, the Scrum Master serves the larger organization by exposing that behavior as an impediment and helping leadership change the conditions that reward concealment.
The closest trap is treating short-term value pressure as permission to lower the Definition of Done.
Adherence to the Definition of Done stays with the Developers, while the Scrum Master serves the organization by making policy-driven technical risk transparent.
Topic: Evolving the Agile Organization
A Scrum Team has missed its last three Sprint Goals. A director proposes estimation training for the Developers. The Scrum Master observes that the Product Goal is clear, the Product Backlog is well ordered, defects are low, and most unfinished work is waiting several days for an external architecture review board. What is the next best step?
Best answer: B
What this tests: Evolving the Agile Organization
Explanation: The evidence points to an organizational impediment, not a team capability, Product Owner effectiveness, or technical-quality problem. The Scrum Master should make the external approval delay transparent and work with the relevant leaders to inspect and change that condition.
A strong Scrum Master response starts by addressing the problem at the level where the evidence points. In this scenario, product direction appears clear, backlog management appears effective, and low defects make technical risk a weak primary cause. The repeated failure pattern is instead tied to waiting on an external review board, which is an organizational condition outside the Developers’ normal control.
The next appropriate step is to increase transparency around that bottleneck and facilitate action with the people who can change it. That supports empiricism and the Scrum Master’s service to the organization.
Planning less work may reduce visible carryover, but it only adapts to the delay rather than helping remove the systemic cause.
The recurring delay comes from an external organizational condition, so the Scrum Master should expose it and help the organization address the impediment.
Topic: Scrum Master Accountability and Service
For three consecutive Sprints, Developers finish implementation, but several Product Backlog items remain not Done because the team’s Definition of Done includes a security review performed by a separate department that works from a weekly queue and requires manager sign-off. A director tells the Scrum Master, “Please coach the team to plan around this dependency better.” What is the best response? Select ONE.
Best answer: B
What this tests: Scrum Master Accountability and Service
Explanation: This is not mainly a team planning problem. A recurring external approval policy is preventing work from meeting the Definition of Done, so the Scrum Master should make the systemic impediment visible and help the organization inspect and change it.
The core issue is an organization-level impediment: an external queue and sign-off policy repeatedly prevent the Scrum Team from creating Done Increments. In this situation, the Scrum Master serves the organization by making the pattern transparent and helping the right people inspect and adapt the system around the team, not by only teaching the team to absorb the delay.
Helping the team cope may reduce pain temporarily, but it normalizes a barrier that is outside the Scrum Team’s control.
This addresses a recurring organization-level impediment by increasing transparency and engaging the people who can remove the systemic barrier.
Topic: Developing People and Teams
A Scrum Team leaves each Sprint Retrospective with several improvement ideas, but by mid-Sprint nobody can tell whether anything changed. After repeated complaints, a department manager asks the Scrum Master for a weekly RAG report on retrospective actions. The team says that would make the Retrospective feel unsafe and bureaucratic. What is the best action for the Scrum Master?
Best answer: C
What this tests: Developing People and Teams
Explanation: The Scrum Master should help the Scrum Team make improvement concrete and inspectable without turning it into compliance reporting. A small experiment with visible evidence preserves transparency, supports learning, and keeps ownership with the team.
In Scrum, retrospective follow-through should be transparent enough to inspect, but it should remain team-owned learning rather than external status reporting. The stronger move is to help the Scrum Team select one meaningful improvement, turn it into a concrete experiment, and agree on what evidence would show progress or impact. That evidence can be made visible in the team’s normal work and inspected in later Scrum events, especially the next Sprint Retrospective. This supports empiricism, focus, and self-management while keeping the Retrospective candid. Separate RAG reports, individual updates to the Scrum Master, or manager verification shift the purpose from improvement to oversight. The key is visible learning, not performative tracking.
This keeps improvement visible through empirical evidence and team ownership instead of creating an external status-reporting loop.
Topic: Scrum Master Accountability and Service
A Scrum Team’s Definition of Done includes integrated testing in a shared environment. Access to that environment requires approval from an external manager, which usually takes 4-6 days. Developers have already automated tests and reduced handoffs, but items still miss the Sprint because of the approval queue. Two other Scrum Teams face the same delay. The Product Owner asks the Scrum Master to “help the team commit less.” What is the best action?
Best answer: A
What this tests: Scrum Master Accountability and Service
Explanation: This is an organizational impediment, not mainly a team planning problem. Because the constraint comes from an external approval policy affecting multiple Scrum Teams, the Scrum Master should make the friction visible and work with management to address it.
The key is choosing the Scrum Master stance that matches the source of the problem. Facilitation and coaching are appropriate when the Scrum Team can solve the issue through its own decisions or behavior. Here, the decisive facts are that the Definition of Done depends on environment access, the team has already improved local practices, and the same queue affects multiple teams. That means the main friction is systemic and outside the Developers’ control. The Scrum Master should make the delay and its impact transparent, then engage the relevant managers and affected teams to inspect and change the policy or workflow causing the bottleneck. Simply asking the team to commit less would adapt to the dysfunction instead of helping remove it.
The delay is a cross-team, policy-driven impediment outside the Developers’ authority, so the Scrum Master should expose it and engage management at the right level.
Topic: Product, Stakeholder, and Technical-Risk Support
A Scrum Team’s Definition of Done already includes integration testing in a production-like environment. For the last three Sprints, Developers complete coding and local tests during the Sprint, but another department controls that environment and only grants access after the Sprint ends. Defects found there create rework and delay usable Increments. The Product Owner suggests moving integration testing into separate Product Backlog items to be done later. Which accountability boundary best fits the Scrum Master’s response?
Best answer: D
What this tests: Product, Stakeholder, and Technical-Risk Support
Explanation: This is primarily an organizational impediment, not a Product Backlog ordering problem or a missing quality standard. Because the Definition of Done already includes the needed testing, the Scrum Master’s best service is to help remove the external constraint while keeping the technical risk transparent.
The deciding concept is responsibility boundary. Developers own how they build quality into the Increment, and the Product Owner owns the Product Backlog, but the stem shows the key blocker is outside the Scrum Team: another department controls essential test-environment access. Since the Definition of Done already includes integration testing, lowering it would hide risk rather than address it. Moving that work into later Product Backlog items may make deferred work visible, but it still leaves the Increment not fully Done by Sprint end. The Scrum Master serves the organization by helping expose and remove impediments the team cannot solve alone so the team can reliably create a Done Increment each Sprint. The key boundary here is organization-level support, not shifting quality accountability.
The main barrier is an external organizational impediment preventing the team from meeting an existing quality commitment within the Sprint.
Topic: Developing People and Teams
For the last five Sprint Retrospectives, the Scrum Team has raised the same deployment delay and handoff problems. The Scrum Master captures a long list of complaints each time, but no improvement is owned, tried during the next Sprint, or reviewed later. The Developers now say the Retrospective is just venting. What is the best next response from the Scrum Master?
Best answer: C
What this tests: Developing People and Teams
Explanation: Continuous improvement is evidenced by a change the Scrum Team actually tries and inspects, not by repeated retrospective notes or recurring complaints. Facilitating one small, visible, owned improvement best restores the Retrospective’s purpose and preserves self-management in the next Sprint.
The Sprint Retrospective exists to plan ways to increase quality and effectiveness. Here, repeated complaints without ownership or follow-through show discussion is happening, but improvement is not. The Scrum Master’s best stance is facilitation: help the Scrum Team identify one meaningful change within its control, make the owner and inspection point visible, and bring it into the next Sprint as appropriate. That creates transparency and supports self-management.
Templates, roadmaps, or Scrum Master-managed tracking may look proactive, but they either enforce compliance or shift responsibility away from the Scrum Team.
This uses facilitation to turn recurring discussion into a concrete, owned improvement that can be inspected empirically.
Topic: Scrum Master Accountability and Service
At a Sprint Review, Sales asks for a new feature for a trade show while Operations asks for defect reduction. Afterward, the Product Owner tells the Scrum Master, “Can you settle this and tell us which Product Backlog items should go first?” What is the best Scrum Master response? Select ONE.
Best answer: B
What this tests: Scrum Master Accountability and Service
Explanation: The Scrum Master should help the Product Owner make better decisions, not make product decisions for them. Facilitating a conversation about the Product Goal, value, and trade-offs supports stakeholder input while keeping Product Backlog ordering with the Product Owner.
The core concept is service without replacing accountability. In Scrum, the Product Owner remains accountable for maximizing product value and for effective Product Backlog management, including ordering. When stakeholders pull in different directions, the Scrum Master should improve transparency and the quality of the conversation, not decide the outcome.
Taking over the ordering or making stakeholders reach consensus weakens accountability instead of strengthening Scrum.
This preserves Product Owner accountability while improving transparency and stakeholder collaboration through facilitation.
Topic: Product, Stakeholder, and Technical-Risk Support
During several Sprints, Developers report items as “90% done” and the status dashboard stays green. Their Definition of Done includes integration testing and security checks, but those checks are repeatedly deferred because a shared test environment is available only near release. The Product Owner asks the Scrum Master to keep the current reporting approach so stakeholders do not overreact. Which action best fits the Scrum Master’s accountability?
Best answer: B
What this tests: Product, Stakeholder, and Technical-Risk Support
Explanation: The Scrum Master should not protect reassuring progress reports when the Definition of Done is not being met. The right service is to increase transparency, help the Scrum Team inspect and adapt, and address the environment constraint the team cannot remove alone.
When checks required by the Definition of Done are deferred, reported progress can hide the real state of the Increment. The Scrum Master’s accountability is to strengthen transparency and empiricism: help the Scrum Team and stakeholders see that quality work is unfinished, facilitate a conversation about how to adapt, and work beyond the team to address the shared-environment constraint. This stays within the Scrum Master boundary because Developers still decide how to do the work and the Product Owner still makes product-value decisions. The Scrum Master does not approve unfinished work, redefine Done for convenience, or manage task execution for the Developers.
The key distinction is exposing and helping remove impediments, not taking over technical ownership.
This increases transparency about technical risk while preserving Developers’ ownership of execution and addressing an organizational barrier.
Topic: Scrum Master Accountability and Service
A Scrum Team recently inherited a brittle legacy component. To help them deliver, the Scrum Master has been assigning work each morning and deciding who should swarm on defects. The last two Sprints ended with a Done Increment, so stakeholders praise the approach. Now Developers mostly speak to the Scrum Master during the Daily Scrum, risks surface late, and when the Scrum Master was absent the Sprint Backlog was not adapted for hours. What should the Scrum Master do next? Select ONE.
Best answer: B
What this tests: Scrum Master Accountability and Service
Explanation: Short-term delivery gains do not justify a pattern that makes Developers dependent on the Scrum Master for daily planning. The best next step is to use the visible evidence to teach the relevant accountabilities and facilitate the team in reclaiming ownership of coordinating work and adapting the Sprint Backlog.
Developers are accountable for creating and adapting the Sprint Backlog plan and for using the Daily Scrum to inspect progress toward the Sprint Goal. In this scenario, the Scrum Master acting as dispatcher created a short-term benefit, but also a harmful dependency: information flows through one person, risks are exposed late, and adaptation slows when that person is absent. The appropriate next step is to make that pattern transparent, teach the affected accountabilities, and facilitate the Developers in deciding how they will coordinate and replan their work themselves.
Handing the control to someone else would preserve the anti-pattern instead of correcting it.
This restores Developers’ self-management and improves direct inspection and adaptation instead of preserving dependence on the Scrum Master.
Topic: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
A Scrum Team works in 2-week Sprints. Its Definition of Done includes automated integration tests and a security review. For the last three Sprints, several Product Backlog items were “code complete” but could not meet the Definition of Done because a separate security department takes 4-6 days to respond. The Product Owner wants to count those items as complete at Sprint Review, and a manager asks the Scrum Master to approve them as “Done pending review” to keep the release forecast stable. What is the best action for the Scrum Master?
Best answer: A
What this tests: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
Explanation: The best action is to make the unmet Definition of Done transparent and treat the delayed security review as an organizational impediment. That helps Developers and leaders inspect the real quality constraint without shifting technical approval to the Scrum Master or pretending unfinished work is part of the Increment.
The core concept is transparency around the Definition of Done and support at the right boundary. Here, the external security delay prevents some work from meeting the Definition of Done, so that work is not part of the Increment even if coding is finished. The Scrum Master should help the Developers and Product Owner make that visible, facilitate inspection of the impact with the relevant managers, and help the organization address the bottleneck as an impediment.
The weaker choices either hide undone work or turn the Scrum Master into a quality gatekeeper.
This keeps quality transparent, preserves Developers’ accountability for Done, and treats the delay as an organizational impediment to address.
Topic: Product, Stakeholder, and Technical-Risk Support
For the last four Sprints, a Scrum Team has demonstrated features in the Sprint Review that worked in a demo but still required performance testing and security review by a shared platform group. Stakeholders left believing the Increment was nearly releasable, but defects and rework then consumed about 30% of the next Sprint. The Product Owner wants to keep showing this work because release pressure is high. Which response by the Scrum Master best exposes and addresses the real constraint? Select ONE.
Best answer: B
What this tests: Product, Stakeholder, and Technical-Risk Support
Explanation: The problem is not how to present progress more smoothly; it is that unfinished work is being mistaken for a Done Increment. The Scrum Master should use the Definition of Done to restore transparency and help remove the dependency that pushes quality work outside the Sprint.
The Definition of Done is the quality commitment for the Increment. If performance testing and security review still remain, the work is not Done, so treating it as nearly releasable makes Sprint Reviews unreliable and hides technical risk. Because this pattern repeats every Sprint, the real constraint is systemic: an external dependency or policy prevents the Scrum Team from meeting its quality commitment within the Sprint. The Scrum Master should help the Scrum Team and Product Owner make that gap transparent, ensure only Done work is treated as part of the Increment, and work with the shared platform group or managers to remove or reduce the dependency. A hardening Sprint, conditional acceptance, or a weaker Definition of Done all postpone learning instead of improving professional delivery.
This restores transparency about what is actually Done and targets the external dependency causing repeated quality gaps.
Topic: Evolving the Agile Organization
A vice president wants a dashboard ranking Scrum Team effectiveness by velocity after two Sprints delivered fewer Product Backlog items than forecast. The Scrum Master also sees that one team still met its Sprint Goals, stakeholders praised the latest Increment, another team lost days waiting for a security approval, and escaped defects rose in production. What should the Scrum Master do next?
Best answer: B
What this tests: Evolving the Agile Organization
Explanation: Leadership should inspect evidence of outcomes, quality, flow, and systemic impediments rather than output proxies. Here, Sprint Goal achievement, stakeholder feedback, defect trends, and approval delays show both whether the teams are effective and whether the organization is constraining them.
At organization level, the Scrum Master helps leaders learn from evidence, not from proxy metrics that can distort behavior. In this scenario, the useful evidence is whether Scrum Teams achieve Sprint Goals, whether stakeholders see value in the Increment, whether quality is improving or degrading through escaped defects, and whether external delays such as security approvals are reducing flow. Those facts make both team effectiveness and organization-created constraints transparent. Once leaders can inspect that evidence, they can adapt policies, support, or structure based on reality. Velocity rankings, utilization, or finer task splitting may change appearances, but they do not explain whether the teams are delivering valuable, high-quality, Done Increments or what systemic impediments are slowing them. Start by making the right evidence visible, then decide what to change.
These measures expose value, quality, flow, and systemic constraints so leadership can inspect real effectiveness.
Topic: Evolving the Agile Organization
A Scrum Team’s Definition of Done requires integrated, security-checked functionality. Each Sprint, Developers finish coding, but a separate architecture group performs integration and security checks the following week. In Sprint Review, stakeholders keep seeing “almost done” items. A director proposes estimation training for Developers and asks the Product Owner to choose less work. What is the Scrum Master’s best response?
Best answer: D
What this tests: Evolving the Agile Organization
Explanation: The proposed fix treats a systemic constraint as a planning problem. Because the external checks are required by the Definition of Done, the Scrum Team cannot produce a Done Increment inside the Sprint until that organizational dependency is made transparent and addressed.
This scenario tests whether the response addresses the issue at the right level. The recurring miss is not mainly a Developer capability problem or a Product Owner selection problem. The stem says the Definition of Done includes integration and security checks, yet a separate group performs them after the Sprint. That creates technical risk and an organizational impediment: work looks close to finished, but it is not Done. The Scrum Master should make that gap visible and facilitate the needed cross-boundary conversation so the affected people and leaders can change ownership, workflow, or constraints. Better estimating, choosing fewer items, or adding another status may change reporting, but none removes the post-Sprint gate.
The recurring problem is an external organizational quality gate creating technical risk, so the Scrum Master should expose it and help remove the condition preventing Done work within the Sprint.
Topic: Developing People and Teams
A Scrum Team’s Daily Scrum has become a round-robin status update to the Scrum Master. When the Scrum Master asks why, several Developers say, “We thought this event is so you can tell us if we are on track.” Two Developers are new to Scrum. The Scrum Master wants to help the Developers understand the Daily Scrum well enough to use it effectively without depending on the Scrum Master each day. What is the best response?
Best answer: C
What this tests: Developing People and Teams
Explanation: Because the problem is a clear Scrum knowledge gap, teaching is the right initial stance. Explaining the Daily Scrum’s purpose and then letting the Developers decide how to use it builds understanding they can apply independently while preserving self-management.
A teaching stance fits when people are misapplying Scrum because they do not yet understand it. In this case, the Developers explicitly believe the Daily Scrum is a status meeting for the Scrum Master, so the first need is clarity about its purpose: Developers inspect progress toward the Sprint Goal and adapt their plan for the Sprint. After that, the Scrum Master should step back and let the Developers decide how to conduct the event effectively. That combination teaches the concept without replacing learner ownership.
Coaching alone is weaker here because discovery questions do not reliably close a basic Scrum knowledge gap. Ongoing facilitation of every Daily Scrum or adding management reporting may create dependency and reinforce the wrong purpose. The key takeaway is to teach enough for independent application, then return control to the Developers.
It addresses the explicit Scrum knowledge gap and returns ownership of the event to the Developers.
Topic: Developing People and Teams
During the third Sprint in a row, the Developers argue in Sprint Planning about urgent production defects. Some want one specialist to own all defect work; others want the work shared to spread knowledge. The discussion gets tense, and several Developers ask the Scrum Master to decide so they can move on. Which response best supports self-management?
Best answer: B
What this tests: Developing People and Teams
Explanation: The best move is to help the Developers make the trade-offs visible and decide for themselves. That increases ownership, learning, and transparency instead of using the Scrum Master to remove discomfort by deciding or smoothing over the conflict.
The core issue is not the tension itself; it is whether the Developers learn to make accountable decisions together. A strong Scrum Master intervention helps the group inspect the real trade-offs in front of them, such as quality, flow, and knowledge sharing, and then supports the Developers in choosing how to proceed. That preserves self-management because the Scrum Master improves the conversation without taking over the decision.
Actions that settle the argument for them, force harmony, or turn the issue into administration may reduce discomfort in the moment, but they also reduce ownership and learning.
This keeps ownership with the Developers while increasing transparency and creating a learning loop.
Topic: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
A senior manager tells a Scrum Team that future Sprint Reviews must be replaced by a 30-minute slide presentation showing percent complete, budget spent, and milestone status. Customer feedback on the Increment can be collected later by email. The Product Owner is uneasy but says management wants more control. What is the best response from the Scrum Master?
Best answer: D
What this tests: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
Explanation: The manager is trying to turn the Sprint Review into a status meeting, which shows a misunderstanding of the event’s purpose. The Scrum Master should teach Scrum and help preserve the Sprint Review as a collaborative inspection of the Increment with stakeholders, not a local reporting ritual.
The best response is teaching. In this scenario, the problem is not that the group lacks a meeting format; it is that management is redefining a Scrum event into status reporting. The Sprint Review exists so the Scrum Team and stakeholders can inspect the Increment, discuss what changed, and adapt what to do next.
Facilitating a bad format, stepping back, or taking over reporting would preserve the misunderstanding instead of improving Scrum use and organizational transparency.
This addresses the clear Scrum knowledge gap and preserves the Sprint Review as an inspect-and-adapt opportunity around the Increment.
Topic: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
In Sprint Planning, a sales director tells the Scrum Team, “Customers are upset. Stop debating quality work, pull the top eight items, and send me a daily progress report.” Developers are split: some want to skip integration testing, which is part of their Definition of Done, to avoid conflict, while others object. What is the best response from the Scrum Master?
Best answer: D
What this tests: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
Explanation: The best Scrum Master response makes the quality and capacity trade-off transparent without taking over decisions. It supports openness, respect, courage, focus on a realistic Sprint Goal, and commitment to a Done Increment.
Under pressure, Scrum Values are applied by increasing transparency, not by hiding risk or forcing agreement. Here, the real issue is tension between stakeholder urgency and the Developers’ ability to meet the Definition of Done. The Scrum Master should facilitate an open discussion in Sprint Planning so the Product Owner can clarify the most valuable outcome, Developers can forecast what is realistically achievable, and the trade-offs are visible to everyone. Commitment in Scrum is not agreeing to arbitrary scope; it is commitment to the Sprint Goal, quality, and working as professionals. A strong Scrum Master response protects self-management and keeps decisions with the Product Owner and Developers while helping stakeholders understand the consequences of pushing for more than can be Done.
This preserves transparency, self-management, and professional quality while showing courage and respect under stakeholder pressure.
Topic: Developing People and Teams
Midway through a Sprint, Developers want to replace most selected work with an internal refactoring effort unrelated to the Sprint Goal. To finish faster, they propose skipping automated regression tests that are part of the Definition of Done. When the Product Owner shares new stakeholder feedback that may affect upcoming product decisions, several Developers reply, “We are self-managing, so we decide what matters.” What is the best action for the Scrum Master?
Best answer: B
What this tests: Developing People and Teams
Explanation: Self-management does not remove Scrum commitments. The Scrum Master should increase transparency and help the Developers and Product Owner inspect the Sprint Goal, the Definition of Done, and stakeholder feedback so the team can adapt appropriately without lowering quality.
In Scrum, Developers are self-managing about how to accomplish selected work, but they are still accountable for creating and adapting the Sprint plan and for instilling quality through the Definition of Done. Self-management does not permit ignoring the Sprint Goal, dismissing stakeholder feedback, or treating undone work as acceptable.
Here, the Scrum Master should facilitate inspection of three things:
After that conversation, Developers may adapt the Sprint Backlog empirically. The key boundary is that adaptation is allowed, but lowering quality or rejecting product feedback under the label of autonomy is not.
This preserves self-management while making clear that Developers adapt their plan within Scrum commitments, not by ignoring goal, quality, or product feedback.
Topic: Developing People and Teams
During Sprint Planning, the Product Owner insists that three customer-demo items must all be included because “sales already expects them this Sprint.” Several Developers push back, saying two items are still unclear and adding all three would likely force work that does not meet the Definition of Done. The discussion becomes tense and repetitive. What should the Scrum Master do next? Select ONE.
Best answer: C
What this tests: Developing People and Teams
Explanation: This conflict signals more than interpersonal friction: it exposes mismatched expectations about Sprint commitments and a risk to meeting the Definition of Done. The Scrum Master should increase transparency and help the Scrum Team inspect those differences before any decision is forced.
In Scrum, conflict can be valuable evidence that important assumptions, risks, or accountability boundaries are not yet clear. Here, the Product Owner is expressing a market expectation, while Developers are raising feasibility and quality concerns about producing a Done Increment. The Scrum Master’s next step is not to suppress the tension, but to facilitate a focused conversation that makes those differences visible and helps the Scrum Team inspect them against the Sprint Goal and Definition of Done.
Jumping straight to a unilateral decision or escalation would skip the inspection the conflict is already pointing to.
The conflict is useful evidence of unclear expectations and quality risk, so the Scrum Master should help the group inspect those differences before deciding the Sprint Backlog.
Topic: Developing People and Teams
A Scrum Team has missed its last three Sprint Goals. A senior manager says the Developers lack discipline and asks the Scrum Master to monitor the Daily Scrum and report weak performers. The Scrum Master also knows that functional managers reassign Developers several times each Sprint for urgent work, annual bonuses reward individual utilization, and the last two Sprint Reviews were canceled by management. Which action is the best next step?
Best answer: A
What this tests: Developing People and Teams
Explanation: The poor behavior is being shaped by system conditions: external reassignment, utilization incentives, and skipped inspection opportunities. The Scrum Master best serves the team by making those constraints visible and helping leaders change them, rather than increasing supervision of individual Developers.
True leadership that serves looks beyond blaming people and examines the environment influencing their behavior. In this scenario, repeated interruptions, reward systems favoring local output, and canceled Sprint Reviews all work against focus, self-management, and empiricism. The Scrum Master should help the organization see these effects clearly and facilitate changes to the conditions causing them.
That response is stronger because it:
Closer alternatives only treat symptoms. The key takeaway is that serving leadership improves the system so better Scrum behavior becomes possible.
This addresses the organizational conditions undermining focus, self-management, and empiricism instead of treating the issue as an individual discipline problem.
Topic: Evolving the Agile Organization
A department head asks a Scrum Master for a weekly dashboard showing each Developer’s utilization, comparing the two Scrum Teams’ velocities, and confirming that all 12 planned features will be delivered by quarter end. The Product Owner says feedback may change scope. Which response best fits the Scrum Master’s accountability?
Best answer: C
What this tests: Evolving the Agile Organization
Explanation: This is an organizational impediment, not a reporting task for the Scrum Master. The Scrum Master should help leaders understand how utilization targets, velocity comparisons, and fixed-scope promises distort behavior, then support transparent, evidence-based forecasting instead.
The Scrum Master serves both the Scrum Team and the larger organization. When leaders ask for utilization reporting, cross-team velocity comparisons, or fixed-scope promises, the Scrum Master’s accountability is to help them understand how those demands can reduce empiricism by encouraging gaming, local optimization, and false certainty. Instead, the Scrum Master should facilitate better transparency: evidence-based forecasts, value discussions, current Increment inspection, and clear trade-offs.
The Product Owner remains accountable for product value and Product Backlog ordering, while Developers own how selected work is turned into a Done Increment and adapt their plan during the Sprint. The Scrum Master should not become the compliance reporter, nor should the Scrum Master block leadership from transparency. The better boundary is to coach leadership and improve how evidence is used. Simply refusing visibility misses the opportunity to change the system.
This uses the Scrum Master’s service to the organization to protect empiricism while leaving product and delivery accountabilities with the Product Owner and Developers.
Topic: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
Over the last three Sprints, a Scrum Team has delivered many Product Backlog items but missed the Sprint Goal twice. Sales and support managers send “urgent” requests directly to Developers several times each Sprint, and the PMO asks each Developer for daily status updates. The Product Owner says most requests are “equally critical,” so the Sprint Backlog changes constantly. As Scrum Master, what should be the primary focus of your coaching?
Best answer: C
What this tests: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
Explanation: The main issue is loss of Focus caused by unmanaged priority changes and parallel reporting demands. The Scrum Master should coach the team, Product Owner, and stakeholders to make trade-offs transparently around the Sprint Goal and use Scrum artifacts for inspection instead of interrupting Developers directly.
In Scrum, Focus helps the Scrum Team concentrate on the most important work needed to achieve the Sprint Goal. Here, the evidence shows fragmented attention: direct urgent requests bypass normal transparency, daily status demands create a second control system, and the Product Owner is not creating enough clarity for meaningful trade-offs. The Scrum Master should coach stakeholders to route requests through the Product Owner, help the Scrum Team use the Sprint Goal to decide whether new work belongs in the Sprint, and strengthen inspection through the Scrum artifacts instead of extra reporting. That supports empiricism and preserves accountabilities. Adding buffers, centralizing decisions in the Scrum Master, or treating the Sprint as a fixed-scope contract each misses the deeper problem: weak Focus under organizational pressure.
This restores Focus by making priority changes transparent and anchored to the Sprint Goal instead of ad hoc interruptions or separate reporting.
Topic: Scrum Master Accountability and Service
A Scrum Master observes this pattern over the last three Sprints:
- Developers complete selected work to the Definition of Done by about day 8 of a 10-day Sprint.
- A mandatory architecture board approves deployments only every other Friday, so releases often wait 6-8 days.
- At each Sprint Review, Sales brings new urgent requests from customers.
- The Product Owner says the Product Backlog is losing clarity because requests arrive through many channels.
- A director asks the Scrum Master to run a weekly status/priority meeting and decide which requests bypass normal ordering.
What is the best action for the Scrum Master?
Best answer: C
What this tests: Scrum Master Accountability and Service
Explanation: The Scrum Master should improve the system rather than become its traffic controller. The evidence shows two problems: stakeholder requests are entering without enough transparency, and an organizational approval policy is delaying delivery after work is Done. Supporting the Product Owner and engaging leadership addresses both without taking over anyone else’s accountability.
This situation requires balanced Scrum Master service to the Scrum Team, Product Owner, stakeholders, and the organization. Stakeholder feedback is useful, but it is arriving through too many channels, so the Product Owner needs help restoring Product Backlog transparency. At the same time, the architecture board is an organization-level impediment because it delays value delivery even after the Increment meets the Definition of Done. The Scrum Master should make both issues visible, facilitate better collaboration, and work with leadership on the policy constraint.
Taking over prioritization or status control would create dependency and blur Scrum accountabilities.
This increases transparency, preserves Scrum accountabilities, and addresses both the Product Backlog clarity issue and the organization-level release constraint.
Topic: Product, Stakeholder, and Technical-Risk Support
The Scrum Team’s Definition of Done requires integration and testing. A sales-promised release date is approaching, so Developers have stopped raising recurring test-environment failures because “we cannot afford delays.” The Product Owner suggests showing partially integrated work as Done in the Sprint Review and skipping the Sprint Retrospective to save time. Which Scrum Master action best fits the situation? Select ONE.
Best answer: A
What this tests: Product, Stakeholder, and Technical-Risk Support
Explanation: The Scrum Master should increase transparency and protect empiricism when pressure encourages concealment. Making undone work and impediments visible, holding to the Definition of Done, and addressing the sales-driven pressure with the Product Owner and leaders supports professional delivery without taking over others’ accountabilities.
Under delivery pressure, the Scrum Master’s boundary is not to lower quality standards, hide impediments, or remove inspect-and-adapt opportunities. The right action is to help everyone see reality clearly: work that does not meet the Definition of Done is not part of a Done Increment, and recurring environment failures are impediments that should be surfaced, not suppressed.
The Scrum Master can facilitate an honest conversation about scope, risk, and options with the Product Owner, Developers, and relevant leaders, while helping address the organizational behavior that is driving concealment. That supports sustainable delivery and long-term improvement. Taking over planning or redefining Done would replace accountability rather than strengthen it.
This keeps quality and progress transparent and treats the delivery pressure as an organizational impediment rather than hiding it.
Topic: Evolving the Agile Organization
A Scrum Master supports three Scrum Teams on one product. Sprint Reviews consistently show Done Increments, and stakeholders want faster feedback, but releases reach customers only after external approvals required by company policy.
Exhibit: last 6 Sprints
Done Increments: 18
Releases to customers: 3
Average wait after Sprint end: 16 days
Recurring issue log note: "Pending architecture, security, and release-board approval"
Which action should the Scrum Master take first?
Best answer: A
What this tests: Evolving the Agile Organization
Explanation: The repeated delay across all teams points to an organization-level impediment created by policy, not a team execution problem. The Scrum Master should make that pattern transparent and engage the people who can inspect and adapt the system.
When several Scrum Teams repeatedly produce Done Increments but releases wait on the same external approvals, the pattern is systemic. The Scrum Master serves the organization by increasing transparency about that delay and helping the people who own the policy inspect its effect on value delivery and feedback. Using the release and wait-time data to facilitate a discussion with the approval groups and affected Scrum Teams is the strongest first step, because it creates shared understanding and enables experiments to reduce or redesign the approvals. Options that add reporting, change Sprint length, or plan around the delay may make the queue easier to manage, but they preserve the underlying impediment instead of helping the organization adapt.
This uses evidence to expose the systemic constraint and involves the people who can adapt the policy.
Topic: Scrum Master Accountability and Service
A Scrum Team works in two-week Sprints. Their Definition of Done includes a mandatory security review performed by a central support group. The support group reviews requests only once each month, so work often waits 10-15 days after development is finished. Managers now tell the Scrum Master to “increase team productivity” because too little work becomes Done each Sprint. Which response best exposes and addresses the real constraint?
Best answer: C
What this tests: Scrum Master Accountability and Service
Explanation: The main constraint is not Developer effort; it is an organizational policy that batches a required activity outside the Sprint. The Scrum Master best serves the organization by making that bottleneck visible and helping leaders and support functions change the conditions that prevent Done work.
This situation points to an organizational impediment: a central support function performs a required review too infrequently for the Scrum Team to regularly meet its Definition of Done. A Scrum Master serving the organization should increase transparency around the actual constraint, such as queue time, blocked work, and its effect on creating a Done Increment, and then help leaders and the support group inspect and adapt the policy.
That response fits Scrum Master accountability because it teaches the organization how its current operating model undermines empiricism and Scrum Team effectiveness. It also aims at a systemic fix, such as earlier collaboration, embedded expertise, or review availability that works within the Sprint. Reducing the forecast or adding reporting only works around the bottleneck, while counting unfinished work as complete damages transparency.
This addresses the organizational bottleneck directly by using transparency and leadership education to remove a condition that prevents effective Scrum.
Topic: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
A Scrum Team has missed three Sprint Goals in a row. Evidence shows the same pattern each Sprint: a line manager assigns Product Backlog items to individual Developers during Sprint Planning, sales staff ask Developers to start urgent work directly during the Sprint, and several Product Backlog items were moved higher without the Product Owner’s knowledge. Stakeholders now say the Sprint Review no longer gives a reliable picture of progress. What should the Scrum Master do?
Best answer: C
What this tests: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
Explanation: The best Scrum Master action is to increase transparency and help everyone re-establish proper Scrum accountabilities. The evidence shows managers, stakeholders, and team members bypassing the Product Owner and undermining Developers’ self-management, so the Scrum Master should coach and facilitate rather than become a new controller.
In Scrum, blurred accountabilities are corrected by making the dysfunction visible and helping the people involved inspect and adapt. Here, managers are assigning work, stakeholders are bypassing the Scrum Team, and Product Backlog ordering is changing without the Product Owner. That reduces transparency, weakens self-management, and makes Sprint Goals unreliable.
Creating a new approval gate or excluding people may suppress symptoms, but it does not restore healthy interaction. The better response is to help the system understand and respect accountabilities while keeping requests and decisions transparent.
This addresses the root cause by making the impact visible and re-establishing Product Backlog ordering with the Product Owner and Sprint execution with the Developers.
Topic: Product, Stakeholder, and Technical-Risk Support
A Product Owner asks a Scrum Master for help after a Sprint Review. Stakeholders insist the product must launch at a trade show in three weeks.
Sprint Review evidence
- Integration defects over last 3 Sprints: 6, 11, 17
- Security testing for the payment flow is still manual
- Two Product Backlog items were demoed but are not Done
- Stakeholders say, "Just hit the date; we can clean this up later"
What should the Scrum Master do next?
Best answer: C
What this tests: Product, Stakeholder, and Technical-Risk Support
Explanation: The best response is to increase transparency and support an empirical release decision. Rising defects, missing security testing, and work that is not Done are clear technical-risk signals, so the Scrum Master should help people inspect reality rather than hide it to protect a date.
When stakeholders push for a date, the Scrum Master serves the Scrum Team and stakeholders by strengthening transparency, not trading it away. The evidence shows worsening integration quality, incomplete security verification, and work that was shown but is not Done. That means release confidence is lower than the date pressure suggests.
This preserves empiricism and accountability. Planning cleanup later or committing first would hide risk instead of helping people make an informed decision.
This keeps quality and technical risk transparent and lets the Product Owner and stakeholders adapt based on what is actually Done.
Topic: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
During a Sprint Retrospective, the Scrum Team argues about why work keeps missing the Definition of Done. For the last three Sprints, most selected work reached testing only on the final day, and integration defects appeared after merges. They ask the Scrum Master, “What should we change next Sprint?” What is the best response?
Best answer: A
What this tests: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
Explanation: The best move is to help the Scrum Team inspect what actually happened and decide its own next step. That applies empiricism in the Retrospective and strengthens self-management instead of making the Scrum Master the problem-solver.
This situation calls for facilitation, not a ready-made answer. The team already has useful evidence: work piles up late in testing and integration defects appear after merges. The Scrum Master’s job is to help make that evidence visible, guide inspection of patterns and likely causes, and support the Scrum Team in selecting one improvement experiment for the next Sprint.
A strong response would:
That preserves empiricism and self-management. Giving the fix yourself may be faster in the moment, but it weakens team learning and ownership.
This makes current evidence transparent, supports inspection, and lets the Scrum Team own the adaptation.
Repeated strong scores should be a trigger to take the real assessment, not to keep grinding the same bank. The goal is fresh Scrum reasoning under pressure, not answer memorization.
This free set gives one complete advanced Scrum Master diagnostic. PM Mastery adds the larger PSM II bank, topic drills, timed mocks, progress tracking, and explanations that show why the best response is usually facilitative, evidence-based, and accountability-preserving.
Retake only after reviewing misses by decision type: facilitation, coaching, teaching, mentoring, leadership style, product support, or organizational impediment. If the same decision type repeats, do focused drills before another full set.
Use the PSM II Practice Test page for the full PM Mastery route, mixed-topic practice, timed mock exams, explanations, and web/mobile app access.
Use the full PM Mastery practice page above for the latest review links and practice route.