ISTQB ISTQB Certified Tester Usability Tester CT-UT Exam Dumps: Updated Questions & Answers (October 2025)

A pilot usability test session is a critical step prior to conducting the actual usability test. Its purpose is to ensure that the test setup, task design, and moderator instructions are clear and function as expected. According to ISO 9241-210 and the Nielsen Norman Group's best practices, pilot testing helps detect unforeseen issues and fine-tune the process. Options A and B are incorrect because testing conditions must reflect realistic scenarios, and thorough preparation is essential to gather meaningful usability data. Option D is also incorrect; a usability test typically consists of multiple sessions with different users to gather sufficient data for analysis. The pilot session ensures everything works smoothly before involving real participants.

Conducting user surveys involves a structured approach that ensures data collection is effective, reliable, and meaningful. The process typically starts with writing a survey plan, which defines the objectives, scope, target population, and methodology. Next, interviewing users and stakeholders is important to gather qualitative insights, refine survey questions, and align the survey with business goals and user needs.

Selecting or designing the questionnaire follows, which includes crafting clear, unbiased questions to capture the desired data. After that, deploying the questionnaire to the recruited participants is essential; this can be done via email, online tools, or in-person, depending on the context. Once the data is collected, it must be analyzed to extract meaningful patterns, trends, and insights. Finally, communicating the findings to stakeholders completes the process by informing decision-making.

Other options miss critical steps such as deploying the questionnaire (Option C), or combine steps incorrectly (Options A and D). Importantly, the step of interviewing users and stakeholders prior to deployment ensures the survey is well-informed and targeted, enhancing the quality and relevance of data collected.

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

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

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

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

A usability test participant is a person selected to represent the target user group and asked to perform specific tasks in a usability test. Their actions, reactions, and feedback help identify usability issues and evaluate the system’s effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction. This role is strictly observational and does not involve organizing, observing, or setting up the test. Options A, B, and C describe other roles (e.g., technical support, observers, or moderators). Only option D accurately reflects the definition of a usability test participant.

Usability is defined in ISO 9241-11 as the extent to which a system can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a specified context of use. Without knowing the context—such as product complexity, user familiarity, device type, or purchasing habits—it is impossible to judge whether five minutes is good or bad. For complex items, five minutes may be reasonable, while for one-click purchases, it may be excessive. Thus, usability cannot be assessed solely based on one metric like time—it must be evaluated within its full usage context.

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

A best practice in usability reporting (based on ISO/IEC 25062:2006 – Common Industry Format for usability test reports) is to include a clear description of the evaluation method used. This includes how the test was designed, how participants were selected, what tasks were performed, and under what conditions the test was conducted. This ensures the results are credible and reproducible. The provided structure omits this essential information. While the report length is not excessive and positive findings may or may not be present, the key missing component is the method description.

When actual users cannot be included, a usability review (often an expert or heuristic evaluation) is the most practical method. Trained evaluators examine the interface against usability principles and standards to identify potential issues. Surveys require user input, and usability testing cannot proceed without users. Accessibility evaluation targets inclusivity for users with impairments, which is related but not a substitute for overall usability evaluation. Therefore, option A is the only valid method under these constraints.

Common mistakes in usability testing include:

Ignoring critical results (ii): A significant issue if findings are not acted upon.

Scheduling the test too late (iv): This can lead to usability problems being discovered too late to be addressed effectively.

Having the wrong focus (v): For instance, focusing on aesthetics instead of usability goals.

Option i ("user is too active") is not a problem—active participation is necessary. Option iii ("no observers involved") is not a typical mistake, since tests can still be valid even with recorded sessions and later review. Hence, the correct answer is A: ii, iv & v are true.