Try 10 focused PSM II questions on Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework, with answers and explanations, then continue with PM Mastery.
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Exam route | PSM II |
| Topic area | Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework |
| Blueprint weight | 21% |
| Page purpose | Focused sample questions before returning to mixed practice |
Use this page to isolate Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework for PSM II. Work through the 10 questions first, then review the explanations and return to mixed practice in PM Mastery.
| Pass | What to do | What to record |
|---|---|---|
| First attempt | Answer without checking the explanation first. | The fact, rule, calculation, or judgment point that controlled your answer. |
| Review | Read the explanation even when you were correct. | Why the best answer is stronger than the closest distractor. |
| Repair | Repeat only missed or uncertain items after a short break. | The pattern behind misses, not the answer letter. |
| Transfer | Return to mixed practice once the topic feels stable. | Whether the same skill holds up when the topic is no longer obvious. |
Blueprint context: 21% of the practice outline. A focused topic score can overstate readiness if you recognize the pattern too quickly, so use it as repair work before timed mixed sets.
These questions are original PM Mastery practice items aligned to this topic area. They are designed for self-assessment and are not official exam questions.
Topic: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
A Scrum Team’s Sprint Review often reveals sharp disagreement among sales, support, and compliance stakeholders. To “keep the meeting constructive,” the Product Owner changes the event to a recorded demo followed by separate one-on-one feedback calls. After two Sprints, stakeholder attendance drops, Product Backlog changes appear later without shared context, and Developers say they understand priorities less well. What is the best interpretation of this change?
Best answer: A
What this tests: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
Explanation: This change weakens the Sprint Review rather than improving it. The evidence shows less shared inspection, delayed adaptation, and lower transparency: attendance fell, backlog changes moved into private conversations, and Developers lost context for priority decisions.
In Scrum, the Sprint Review is not just a demo. Its purpose is for the Scrum Team and stakeholders to inspect the outcome of the Sprint and determine future adaptations together. The format can change, but the purpose must still be served.
Here, the change was driven by discomfort with disagreement, and the results show reduced transparency: fewer stakeholders attend, feedback is fragmented into private conversations, and Product Backlog changes happen without shared context. Developers now understand priorities less well, which is a strong signal that inspection and adaptation have become weaker, not better.
A useful format change would preserve or improve shared understanding, timely feedback, and transparent adaptation; this one mainly hides tension instead.
The new format replaced a collaborative inspect-and-adapt event with fragmented, private feedback that reduced shared understanding.
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: A
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: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
A department head asks the Scrum Master to send a daily spreadsheet showing each Developer’s completed tasks, hours remaining, and blockers so executives can “track productivity.” The Scrum Team already inspects progress in the Daily Scrum, but several items marked complete this Sprint later failed integration and were not Done. Which response best fits Scrum accountabilities and addresses the real transparency problem? Select ONE.
Best answer: C
What this tests: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
Explanation: The problem is not missing task data; it is weak transparency about progress toward the Sprint Goal and whether work is actually Done. The best response keeps Sprint Backlog ownership with Developers and has the Scrum Master help management inspect evidence that supports adaptation rather than compliance reporting.
In Scrum, Developers are accountable for creating and adapting the Sprint Backlog plan. A daily spreadsheet of individual task status may satisfy a local control habit, but it does not improve empirical transparency when items later fail integration and are not Done. The better boundary is to make the right things visible: progress toward the Sprint Goal and whether the Increment meets the Definition of Done. The Scrum Master serves the organization by coaching the department head away from person-by-person reporting and toward evidence that enables inspection and adaptation. This also protects self-management, because Developers should not lose ownership of how they manage daily work. Real transparency exposes product progress and quality; compliance theater usually exposes activity while hiding risk.
This preserves Developers’ accountability for the Sprint Backlog and shifts transparency to progress toward the Sprint Goal and adherence to the Definition of Done.
Topic: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
A Scrum Team says it is using Scrum, but an analyst reorders the Product Backlog as a “proxy Product Owner” because the Product Owner is busy with steering meetings. The Daily Scrum and Sprint Review have become status updates for managers, and management requires the team to hit 45 points every Sprint. Developers are informally split into UI and API specialists who rarely plan together. What is the best action for the Scrum Master?
Best answer: B
What this tests: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
Explanation: This scenario shows several classic PSM II anti-patterns: a proxy Product Owner, forced velocity target, component behavior, and status-only events. The Scrum Master’s best response is to make these patterns transparent and coach the people involved back to clear accountabilities, self-management, and empiricism.
Scrum depends on clear accountability and transparency. Here, the analyst is acting as a proxy Product Owner, managers are using Scrum events for status reporting, output is being driven by a velocity target, and Developers are behaving like component sub-teams instead of one cross-functional Scrum Team. The Scrum Master should not manage around these symptoms; the better move is to help the Scrum Team and organization restore Scrum as defined.
More tracking, tighter coordination, or formal component silos may feel helpful, but they reinforce the anti-patterns rather than improving effectiveness.
It addresses the root anti-patterns by restoring Scrum accountabilities, cross-functionality, and event purpose instead of adding more control.
Topic: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
A Scrum Team delivers a Done Increment every Sprint. Developers adapt their plan each day toward the Sprint Goal, and each Retrospective ends with one improvement experiment. Yet Sprint Reviews are polished demos for senior managers; stakeholders rarely discuss customer feedback or changing market conditions, and the Product Owner reorders the Product Backlog later in private meetings. Which conclusion should the Scrum Master draw?
Best answer: D
What this tests: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
Explanation: The team is already inspecting Sprint work daily and improving its way of working in Retrospectives. The missing inspect-and-adapt loop is at the Sprint Review, where stakeholders should help inspect the Increment in the current context and influence what happens next.
The strongest signal is that the Sprint Review has become a presentation instead of a collaborative inspection event. In Scrum, the Sprint Review lets the Scrum Team and stakeholders inspect the Increment, consider customer and market changes, and adapt what to do next, often affecting the Product Backlog. Because those discussions happen later in private meetings, transparency is reduced and empirical product adaptation is delayed.
The key is matching each type of inspection and adaptation to the event designed for it.
The evidence shows product feedback and Product Backlog adaptation are happening outside the Sprint Review, so that event is not serving its inspect-and-adapt purpose.
Topic: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
A Scrum Master notices a recurring pattern: in Sprint Planning, the Product Owner breaks selected work into tasks and assigns them to individual Developers. In the Daily Scrum, Developers report status to the Product Owner before changing the plan. The Sprint Goal is usually met, and when asked separately everyone can describe Scrum accountabilities correctly, yet it remains unclear whether Developers are self-managing or just following direction. What is the best response by the Scrum Master? Select ONE
Best answer: D
What this tests: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
Explanation: The issue is not a lack of vocabulary; it is a visible behavior pattern that blurs accountabilities and hides whether Developers are actually self-managing. The best Scrum Master response is to facilitate inspection of that pattern so the Scrum Team can adapt how it works.
Role confusion inside a Scrum Team reduces transparency even when delivery still appears successful. Developers are accountable for creating and adapting the plan in the Sprint Backlog, while the Product Owner is accountable for maximizing value, not directing daily execution. Here, the Product Owner is acting like a task manager and Developers are behaving like directed specialists, so the Scrum Team’s effectiveness is harder to inspect.
The strongest response is facilitation: make the observed interactions visible and help the Scrum Team inspect their impact together. That supports empiricism and preserves self-management because the team, not the Scrum Master, decides how to improve its working relationships.
A private fix for one person, a temporary command-and-control rescue, or passive nonintervention would all miss the broader accountability problem.
Facilitation makes the pattern and its effects transparent so the Scrum Team can restore clear accountabilities without the Scrum Master taking over.
Topic: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
Mid-Sprint, a sales director tells the Scrum Team that winning a major customer depends on releasing the current feature this month. In the next two Daily Scrums, Developers argue about skipping some regression testing; one says, “I stopped raising defects because it only starts fights,” and the Product Owner asks the Scrum Master to “make them align and get back to work.” What is the best next step?
Best answer: C
What this tests: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
Explanation: The immediate problem is not disagreement itself but the loss of transparency caused by hidden defects and pressure-driven behavior. The Scrum Master should facilitate an immediate conversation that uses openness, respect, courage, commitment, and focus to help the team inspect the situation and adapt responsibly.
When conflict causes people to stop raising defects, empiricism is already breaking down because transparency is being lost. Scrum Values are most useful here as a practical way to make the real issue visible: openness about quality risk, respect in how people speak to each other, courage to name outside pressure, focus on the Sprint Goal, and commitment to creating a Done Increment. The Scrum Master should first facilitate that inspection rather than solve the problem for the team.
If the organization continues to pressure the team to hide quality problems after this transparency is restored, broader escalation may then be appropriate.
This restores transparency, uses the Scrum Values to make the conflict discussable, and preserves the Developers’ accountability for adapting their plan.
Topic: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
A Scrum Master notices that the Sprint Review has become a slide presentation of percent complete, utilization, and red-amber-green status for senior managers. The Increment is rarely demonstrated, stakeholders give little feedback, and no one discusses progress toward the Product Goal or possible next adaptations. What is the best response from the Scrum Master?
Best answer: A
What this tests: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
Explanation: The current review is status-reporting theater because it emphasizes proxy reporting instead of evidence from the product and marketplace. The best response is to facilitate a Sprint Review that inspects the actual Increment, Product Goal progress, and stakeholder feedback so the group can adapt.
Empiricism requires transparency that exposes what is actually happening so people can inspect and adapt. In the scenario, percent complete, utilization, and RAG charts mainly reassure managers; they do not let participants inspect the product outcome, learn from stakeholders, or decide what to change next. The Sprint Review should focus on evidence such as the current Increment, progress toward the Product Goal, relevant stakeholder feedback, and any adaptations worth making.
Facilitating that conversation is stronger than improving status reporting or treating stakeholder involvement as the problem.
This restores the Sprint Review’s purpose by using product evidence and stakeholder input to inspect outcomes and adapt.
Topic: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
During a Sprint Review, stakeholders ask whether a planned market launch can still happen in two Sprints. The Developers say most Product Backlog items are coded, but several are not integrated, and the test environment has failed repeatedly all Sprint. The Product Owner looks to the Scrum Master to respond. What is the best response?
Best answer: A
What this tests: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
Explanation: Empiricism starts with transparency. The best move is to make the actual state of the Increment, the integration risk, and the environment impediment visible before discussing what to do next.
In Scrum, important decisions should be based on transparent facts, not pressure for certainty. Here, “mostly coded” is not enough information because unintegrated work and a failing test environment create delivery and quality risk. The Scrum Master’s best service is to facilitate a conversation that makes current progress, outcomes, and impediments visible in the Sprint Review so stakeholders and the Scrum Team can inspect the situation together.
Forcing a promise, jumping to a solution, or parking the issue for later reduces transparency instead of supporting empirical adaptation.
This increases transparency about progress, risk, and impediments so everyone can inspect reality before adapting.
Topic: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
A company requires an architecture board to approve any Product Backlog item that changes shared services before Developers can start it. The board meets weekly. In the last two Sprints, several selected items waited three days or more for approval, and one Sprint Goal was missed. The director tells the Scrum Master, “If this policy is hurting delivery, show me.” What is the best action for the Scrum Master now? Select ONE.
Best answer: B
What this tests: Understanding and Applying the Scrum Framework
Explanation: The best step is to make the policy’s effects transparent using evidence the organization can inspect. Showing approval delay, blocked work, and Sprint Goal impact creates an empirical basis for change instead of hiding the problem or arguing from theory alone.
When a non-Scrum practice sits outside the Scrum Team’s control, the Scrum Master should first make its impact visible in terms people can inspect and adapt around. In this case, the approval board may or may not remain, but its consequences are already observable: waiting time after Sprint Planning, blocked selected work, and missed Sprint Goal outcomes.
Working around the board or demanding its removal without evidence weakens empiricism and can hide the real organizational impediment.
This makes the non-Scrum practice empirically visible before trying to change an organizational policy.
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.