Why SPIES/STARR Might Be Holding You Back: The Framework Nobody Talks About

You've learned SPIES. Or STARR. Or STICC. Or whatever three-letter acronym your CASPer prep resource is pushing.

You practice responses, and they fit the framework perfectly. Your responses sound... formulaic. Practiced. Not quite you.

And here's the thing: CASPer assessors might be noticing that too.

The Framework Problem: When Structure Becomes Constraint

SPIES and STARR exist for a reason:

• They provide structure under time pressure
• They ensure you hit key competency domains
• They keep you from rambling

But here's what nobody says: They can sound inauthentic.

When you force your response into a framework, you might:

• Oversimplify complex scenarios (forcing nuance into a five-part structure)
• Sound robotic (emphasizing structure over natural speech)
• Miss the emotional core of the scenario
• Spend time on structure instead of substance

Example: How SPIES Can Backfire

Scenario: A patient gets diagnosed with a terminal illness and immediately asks you not to tell their family. You suspect their spouse would want to know.

Forced SPIES Response:

"S: This is a situation where autonomy conflicts with family rights. P: The problem is the patient wants privacy, but the family might need information. I: I need to evaluate competing values. E: I empathize with the patient's fear and the family's need to know. S: I would have a private conversation with the patient about medical decision-making, then respect their wishes while offering to facilitate family conversation if they change their mind."

This hits all five letters. It's structured. It's... also a bit cold and mechanical.

Natural Response (Same Content, No Forced Framework):

"This is genuinely difficult because I respect patient autonomy, but I've seen situations where families being kept in the dark actually harms patients—they can't make informed decisions about their lives. So I'd have a private conversation with the patient first. I'd explain that I'm legally bound to respect their privacy, but I'd also encourage them to consider whether their family would want to know. I'd offer to help facilitate that conversation if they wanted. And I'd respect whatever they ultimately decide—because even though it's hard, their autonomy matters."

Same reasoning. Natural delivery. Sounds like a real person thinking, not a student filling in a template.

The Research That Doesn't Get Cited

There's limited peer-reviewed research on CASPer, but what exists suggests:

• Authenticity matters: Responses that sound natural and personal score higher than responses that sound rehearsed
• Over-structure is visible: Assessors can tell when you're fitting a framework; they note it as "formulaic"
• Depth over comprehensiveness: A deep, genuine exploration of one aspect scores higher than a shallow coverage of all five SPIES components

This doesn't mean "don't use frameworks." It means use frameworks as thinking tools, not response templates.

The Authentic Approach: Frameworks as Scaffolding, Not Scripts

Here's a better way to think about frameworks:

Framework = Thinking Process
Response = Natural Communication

Your internal thinking might follow SPIES, but your actual response doesn't need to announce each step. It flows naturally.

When Frameworks Are Actually Helpful (And When to Abandon Them)

Use SPIES/STARR When:

• You're under severe time pressure - The framework keeps you from blanking
• You struggle with organization - You tend to ramble or get stuck
• You're panicked - Having a mental checklist stabilizes your thinking
• You're practicing - Use the framework while learning, then let go

Ditch (or Heavily Modify) Frameworks When:

• You sound wooden - Your assessor feedback says "formulaic" or "scripted"
• The scenario doesn't fit - Some scenarios don't need all five steps
• It interrupts your authentic voice - You're overthinking structure instead of responding naturally
• You have time to think differently - Not all scenarios demand mechanical responses

Alternative Approaches (That Might Work Better for You)

Approach 1: The "Values Mapping" Method

Instead of SPIES, map the values in conflict:

• What values are in tension? (Autonomy vs. beneficence? Justice vs. efficiency?)
• Where do I stand on each value?
• How do I navigate the tension authentically?

Response flows from your genuine value analysis, not a framework.

Approach 2: The "Stakeholder Perspective" Method

Instead of forcing SPIES, rotate through perspectives:

• Patient perspective: What do they need/fear?
• Team perspective: What are the pressures/constraints?
• System perspective: What does the institution care about?
• My perspective: What would I want if I were in this role?

Approach 3: The "Action-First" Method

Instead of analyzing first, decide first:

• What would I actually do in this moment?
• Why would I do that?
• What concerns might the other person have?
• How would I address those concerns?

Starts with your action, justifies it, shows awareness. Very natural.

How to Transition From Framework to Authenticity

• Week 1-2: Framework Dependence - Use SPIES rigidly while learning
• Week 3-4: Framework Flexibility - Use framework internally, but don't announce it
• Week 5-6: Framework as Thinking Tool - Framework is your backup
• Week 7-8: Test Readiness - You've internalized the thinking process

The Reframe: What Makes CASPer Responses Actually Competitive

CASPer is assessing:

• Can you identify what's ethically/professionally complex about a situation?
• Can you reason through multiple perspectives?
• Can you articulate your decision and why you'd make it?
• Can you show awareness of nuance and competing interests?

It's NOT assessing:

• Whether you use a specific framework
• Whether your response has exactly five parts
• Whether you use certain phrases
• How well you fit a template

The frameworks help you hit the actual competencies. But the competencies are what matter, not the framework.

Final Reframe: Authenticity as Competitive Advantage

CASPer is assessing "interpersonal competence." One core part of interpersonal competence is authenticity—the ability to be genuine while still remaining professional.

When you sound like yourself (structured, thoughtful, genuine), you're actually demonstrating the competency.

When you sound like a framework, you're performing it.

And assessors, who evaluate thousands of responses, can tell the difference.

So if frameworks make you sound inauthentic: ditch them. Your authentic reasoning might be your competitive advantage.