TEACHING + PRACTICE
Complete CPTE Prep
Source-linked teaching, formative questions, three written mocks and three oral mock forms.
QUIETSTRIDE · FREE PREVIEW
Free CPTE practice questions and oral case
Try four representative written questions—MSK, neurology, cardiorespiratory and professional practice—plus one oral case. No account or payment required. This short preview is untimed and does not predict exam readiness.
Written questions
Choose your answer before opening the explanation. Identify the finding that supports your choice and explain why the other options go beyond the information given.
These selected questions focus on interpreting findings and professional judgment. They are a small learning sample, not a balanced test of the full CPTE blueprint.
Question 1: MSK reasoning
A 42-year-old electrician has gradual lateral shoulder pain during overhead work. Passive motion is nearly full, resisted external rotation reproduces pain, and there is no traumatic onset or neurological deficit. The chart records pain during the same work task over three weeks.
| Record field | Observation / context |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | 6 pain /10 |
| Week 2 | 4 pain /10 |
| Week 3 | 3 pain /10 |
| Context 1 | Same named overhead work task across three weeks |
| Context 2 | Weekly task duration and load were not recorded |
The pain scores improved, but weekly overhead exposure was not recorded. What should be clarified before interpreting work tolerance?
Show answer and explanation
Compare the explanation with your own reasoning. Selecting an answer is optional.
Answer: B — Whether task duration and load were comparable
Deciding detail: Pain fell from 6 to 3, but the electrician may have performed less overhead work; the missing exposure prevents a work-capacity conclusion.
A. Medication use could alter pain without changing capacity; it does not supply the missing duration and load.
B. Comparing time overhead and load distinguishes better tolerance from an easier workday.
C. Passive motion describes joint movement, not how much overhead work produced the recorded pain.
D. Rest pain is a different outcome from pain during overhead exposure.
You can change your choice while studying. This small sample does not produce a readiness score.
Question 2: Neurology reasoning
A 66-year-old is in rehabilitation after a stroke and walks with prescribed assistance. The chart shows comfortable gait speed on the same walkway with the same aid.
| Record field | Observation / context |
|---|---|
| Baseline | 0.35 metres/second |
| Review | 0.5 metres/second |
| Context 1 | Same walkway and mobility aid |
| Context 2 | Assistance and cueing must be retained in interpreting performance |
Gait speed increased from 0.35 to 0.50 m/s. The patient asks to walk to the dining room without assistance. What evidence is most relevant before changing the assistance plan?
Show answer and explanation
Compare the explanation with your own reasoning. Selecting an answer is optional.
Answer: A — Observe the meal route with the current assistance plan
Deciding detail: The patient wants to walk to meals without help; a faster supported straight-walk test does not establish route independence.
A. The dining-room route samples relevant turns, distance and obstacles while prescribed assistance remains available.
B. Repeating speed checks a measured gain but omits the actual route demands.
C. Leg strength contributes to gait but does not show assistance needs during the meal route.
D. Confidence matters to participation but cannot independently demonstrate route safety.
You can change your choice while studying. This small sample does not produce a readiness score.
Question 3: Cardiorespiratory reasoning
A 67-year-old with stable COPD is assessed for supervised exercise. The chart shows breathlessness during two trials of the same walking task: continuous walking and intervals with planned recovery.
| Record field | Observation / context |
|---|---|
| Continuous | 7 Borg CR10 |
| Intervals | 4 Borg CR10 |
| Context 1 | Continuous walking versus intervals with planned recovery |
| Context 2 | Active time, pace or distance and recovery must be compared before judging exposure |
The interval trial has a lower breathlessness score. Which interpretation should guide the next discussion?
Show answer and explanation
Compare the explanation with your own reasoning. Selecting an answer is optional.
Answer: C — Compare active work and recovery before choosing the repeatable format
Deciding detail: Intervals produced lower breathlessness, but the active walking dose and recovery may differ from continuous exercise.
A. Lower symptoms do not prove a greater training dose or adaptation.
B. Elapsed appointment time includes rest and therefore cannot establish equal active exposure.
C. Comparing active work, pace and recovery connects tolerability to the delivered dose.
D. Averaging scores hides the contrast between two different exercise formats.
You can change your choice while studying. This small sample does not produce a readiness score.
Question 4: Professional practice
A capable adult consents to a shoulder assessment but declines one test after its purpose is explained. There is no emergency. What is the best next action?
Show answer and explanation
Compare the explanation with your own reasoning. Selecting an answer is optional.
Answer: D — Respect the declined test and discuss suitable alternatives
Deciding detail: The capable adult specifically declines one test after explanation, despite consenting to the broader assessment.
A. A relative cannot supply permission that overrides this capable patient’s refusal.
B. Declining one procedure does not automatically mean declining the whole assessment.
C. Earlier general consent does not remain permission for a specifically refused test.
D. Respecting the refusal and discussing alternatives preserves choice and clarifies assessment limits.
You can change your choice while studying. This small sample does not produce a readiness score.
TAKE THE NEXT STEP
Bring teaching and practice together.
Complete CPTE Prep · $249 CAD one-time · 12 months · No automatic renewal.
Continue with the free oral case ↓ · Look inside the teaching
Optional: follow one case through four decisions
This is a complete four-question vignette from the released first mock. The first question overlaps the sample above. Answer each before opening its rationale; after the fourth, explain how your decision changes across the case. This is practice, not an official difficulty benchmark.
Case question 1
A 42-year-old electrician has gradual lateral shoulder pain during overhead work. Passive motion is nearly full, resisted external rotation reproduces pain, and there is no traumatic onset or neurological deficit. The chart records pain during the same work task over three weeks.
| Record field | Observation / context |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | 6 pain /10 |
| Week 2 | 4 pain /10 |
| Week 3 | 3 pain /10 |
| Context 1 | Same named overhead work task across three weeks |
| Context 2 | Weekly task duration and load were not recorded |
The pain scores improved, but weekly overhead exposure was not recorded. What should be clarified before interpreting work tolerance?
Show answer and explanation
Compare the explanation with your own reasoning. Selecting an answer is optional.
Answer: B — Whether task duration and load were comparable
Deciding detail: Pain fell from 6 to 3, but the electrician may have performed less overhead work; the missing exposure prevents a work-capacity conclusion.
A. Medication use could alter pain without changing capacity; it does not supply the missing duration and load.
B. Comparing time overhead and load distinguishes better tolerance from an easier workday.
C. Passive motion describes joint movement, not how much overhead work produced the recorded pain.
D. Rest pain is a different outcome from pain during overhead exposure.
You can change your choice while studying. This small sample does not produce a readiness score.
Case question 2
Which follow-up finding changes the priority from routine loading progression to assessment of a potentially new injury?
Show answer and explanation
Compare the explanation with your own reasoning. Selecting an answer is optional.
Answer: A — Loss of active elevation following a new fall
Deciding detail: The new fall and inability to elevate the arm change the previously gradual, stable presentation.
A. Trauma with major functional loss requires reassessment for significant injury before loading.
B. Night pain after an unusually long shift can reflect the changed exposure and does not equal traumatic functional loss.
C. Pain after heavier resistance calls for a dose and examination review, without establishing a new structural injury.
D. Earlier fatigue during a longer task may arise because the task demand increased.
You can change your choice while studying. This small sample does not produce a readiness score.
Case question 3
On the stable baseline presentation, without the new traumatic finding considered in the preceding question, the electrician and employer can trial one modification. Which plan most directly tests overhead-bout duration?
Show answer and explanation
Compare the explanation with your own reasoning. Selecting an answer is optional.
Answer: C — Shorten overhead bouts; keep task load and record recovery
Deciding detail: This stable visit asks specifically whether shorter overhead bouts improve recovery while the load remains comparable.
A. Reducing load tests force demand rather than bout duration.
B. Changing band resistance alters rehabilitation exposure rather than the workplace bout.
C. Shortening the bout varies the intended exposure; recovery helps show whether that change is useful.
D. Rotating jobs changes several exposures, making a duration-specific conclusion harder.
You can change your choice while studying. This small sample does not produce a readiness score.
Case question 4
The electrician reports less pain but cannot sustain the agreed overhead work block. Which measure should lead the next reassessment?
Show answer and explanation
Compare the explanation with your own reasoning. Selecting an answer is optional.
Answer: B — Duration and symptoms during the agreed simulated work task
Deciding detail: The remaining problem is sustaining the agreed overhead block despite lower pain.
A. Peak external-rotation force does not show how long the work position can be sustained.
B. A graded work simulation directly measures the unresolved duration and its symptom cost.
C. A questionnaire captures perceived function but may miss the exact failed work demand.
D. Elevation range may explain access to the position but does not quantify sustained work.
You can change your choice while studying. This small sample does not produce a readiness score.
Oral-case preview
Returning to overhead work
A 44-year-old painter with persistent shoulder symptoms wants unrestricted overhead work. Daily activities have improved: they carry a light bag at waist height and reach an empty shelf, but have not worked overhead for more than two minutes. A shift includes repeated roller work and carrying supplies. The employer requests unrestricted fitness; modified duties may be available. No new injury or neurological symptoms are reported. Exact loads, shift demands and next-day response remain unknown.
Practise answering aloud. Allow up to 15 minutes for the complete case, then compare your reasoning with the review points.
- Explain your assessment and how you would establish work capacity.
- Explain how you would protect the patient from an inappropriate return while supporting their goals.
- Explain how you would respond to the employer’s request and document your recommendation.
Show review points
Prompt 1
- Essential reasoning: A representative task must sample overhead load and duration because comfortable daily activities do not establish roller-work endurance or recovery across a shift.
- Completeness check: Naming work simulation without stating what load, duration, quality or recovery it would measure leaves the assessment plan incomplete.
Prompt 2
- Essential reasoning: Temporary duties should use demonstrated tolerance while overhead exposure and next-day function are reassessed; a successful two-minute task cannot support a full-shift promise.
- Completeness check: A modified-duty suggestion without a review point or a specific response to worsening function needs more detail.
Prompt 3
- Essential reasoning: The report must distinguish observed tasks, reported symptoms and untested demands so the employer can act on the evidence without mistaking uncertainty for unrestricted clearance.
- Completeness check: A cautious report still needs a concrete tested-task statement and a remaining-uncertainty statement; particular wording is not required.
Work through the reasoning
The deciding clue: Brief shelf reaching and waist-height carrying have improved, but the sustained overhead work requested by the employer has not been tested.
Prompt 1: I would first clarify the actual job: roller weight, overhead duration, breaks, ladder use and opportunities to alternate tasks. Carrying a bag and briefly reaching a shelf do not sample those demands. After consent and a relevant shoulder and neurological assessment, I would select a graded representative task within current tolerance. I would record load, duration, movement quality, symptoms and recovery, including the following day, rather than infer a full shift from a short successful trial. Prompt 2: I would ask which duties matter most and what modifications the painter could realistically negotiate. A time-limited trial of assessed duties, with overhead exposure below the provoking dose and a review point, could support participation while uncertainty remains. I would explain what changes should stop the trial and prompt reassessment. I would not promise a return date or ask the person to prove capacity by completing an unassessed full shift. Prompt 3: With authorization, I would report the tasks actually tested, their conditions, observed tolerance and the demands still untested. I could recommend temporary modifications and specify what further assessment would inform progression. I would explain to the employer that improved daily activity is insufficient evidence for unrestricted overhead work. My record would separate the patient's report, my findings and my recommendation, and exclude unrelated health details from the employer letter.
Safety priority
Clearing a full overhead shift from an empty-shelf reach exposes the worker to demands not assessed. Advising a full shift or exercise until severe pain ignores the current capacity gap.
Try a follow-up
A two-minute simulated roller task is comfortable, but dressing is harder the next morning. Explain what changes in your response and what remains necessary.
Review your response
Listen back to your answer or discuss it with a study partner. Did you distinguish assessed findings from assumptions, explain your priorities and uncertainty, and describe what you would reassess? Choose one part to clarify, then answer again in your own words.
These points support self-review; they are not an official examiner score.
Try the structured self-review workspace
Compare your response with the teaching notes
Educational self-review, not an examiner grade or official scoring threshold. These notes are not a complete spoken exemplar. Content was developed with AI assistance; see the case review record for approval provenance.
Prompt 1: I would first clarify the actual job: roller weight, overhead duration, breaks, ladder use and opportunities to alternate tasks. Carrying a bag and briefly reaching a shelf do not sample those demands. After consent and a relevant shoulder and neurological assessment, I would select a graded representative task within current tolerance. I would record load, duration, movement quality, symptoms and recovery, including the following day, rather than infer a full shift from a short successful trial. Prompt 2: I would ask which duties matter most and what modifications the painter could realistically negotiate. A time-limited trial of assessed duties, with overhead exposure below the provoking dose and a review point, could support participation while uncertainty remains. I would explain what changes should stop the trial and prompt reassessment. I would not promise a return date or ask the person to prove capacity by completing an unassessed full shift. Prompt 3: With authorization, I would report the tasks actually tested, their conditions, observed tolerance and the demands still untested. I could recommend temporary modifications and specify what further assessment would inform progression. I would explain to the employer that improved daily activity is insufficient evidence for unrestricted overhead work. My record would separate the patient's report, my findings and my recommendation, and exclude unrelated health details from the employer letter.
Safety priority: Clearing a full overhead shift from an empty-shelf reach exposes the worker to demands not assessed. Advising a full shift or exercise until severe pain ignores the current capacity gap.
Extend your reasoning: A two-minute simulated roller task is comfortable, but dressing is harder the next morning. Explain what changes in your response and what remains necessary.
0 points marked for further practice. Your selections are self-reflection, not a grade.
Review whether you identified the concern, explained why it changes management, chose the next action and communicated it in relation to the person's goals. These are reflection prompts, not a validated checklist score.
Notes stay in this browser, separately for each attempt. They are not sent for marking. Browser clearing removes them. Earlier checklist marks remain in their original storage.
Open the printable oral-practice worksheet
Oral-practice worksheet
Use this flexible structure to organize your thoughts before answering aloud. Adapt it to the question; it is not a script to recite or an official scoring rubric.
Use your browser’s Print command to print this worksheet or save it as a PDF. Write your notes on paper; nothing is submitted or saved by this worksheet.
Returning to overhead work
A 44-year-old painter with persistent shoulder symptoms wants unrestricted overhead work. Daily activities have improved: they carry a light bag at waist height and reach an empty shelf, but have not worked overhead for more than two minutes. A shift includes repeated roller work and carrying supplies. The employer requests unrestricted fitness; modified duties may be available. No new injury or neurological symptoms are reported. Exact loads, shift demands and next-day response remain unknown.
- Explain your assessment and how you would establish work capacity.
- Explain how you would protect the patient from an inappropriate return while supporting their goals.
- Explain how you would respond to the employer’s request and document your recommendation.
Plan your answer
- Frame the task
What is the person trying to achieve? What decision is the prompt asking you to explain?
- Separate findings from assumptions
Which facts are given? What is unknown, and what would you clarify before deciding?
- Prioritize and explain why
What needs attention first? Link each priority to a finding rather than listing everything you know.
- Describe a proportionate plan
What would you assess or do next, and why? What would change your plan or require help?
- Communicate uncertainty
How would you explain the options and limits of your conclusions in plain language? What preferences or permission would you clarify?
- Reassess and follow through
What would you check again, when, and how would the result guide your next decision? What should be documented?
Reflect after speaking
Mark what you demonstrated and circle one area to improve. These checks are reflection prompts, not a score or a prediction of exam performance.
- I answered the specific question.
- I supported my priorities with the information given.
- I separated what is known from what needs clarification.
- I explained safety considerations and the limits of my plan.
- I used clear language and considered the person’s goals and preferences.
- I described reassessment and what could change my decision.
One change I will make in my next attempt:
Try again in your own words, then compare with the case review points above. If practising with a partner, ask them which part of your reasoning was clear and where they needed more explanation.
QuietStride independent educational practice. Not affiliated with or endorsed by CAPR. No official score, pass prediction or readiness guarantee. quietstridept.com/samples/mock-exams
YOUR NEXT STEP
Choose the support you need.
FOCUSED PRACTICE
One written or oral mock
Choose an individual form when you want a focused practice session with explanations or self-review.
$30 CAD per form3 months · No automatic renewal
Choose a mock →Preview questions also appear in their source mock forms. Written and oral mocks are included with active Complete Prep access; subject tests are separate. Check existing access.
Share this free sample
Share this free resource with a study partner. The link contains no answers, notes or saved settings.
