Free Scrum PSM I Actual Exam Questions

It’s A because management in Scrum should enable and support teams, not keep tabs on their productivity or staffing. Options B, C, and D sound too controlling and don’t align with Scrum’s empowerment values.

Makes sense to rule out B, C, and D since Scrum is about empowerment, not control or staffing oversight. Management’s role should be more about enabling the team rather than tracking metrics or firing people. So I’d go with A because helping teams improve by providing resources fits Scrum’s collaborative vibe best.

B/D? Putting non-functional requirements on a separate list on the Scrum board (B) makes them really visible day-to-day, not just buried in docs. Adding them to the Product Backlog (D) keeps them transparent and part of planning discussions, so they don’t get forgotten. C feels right for ensuring work is done, but it’s more about quality gates than visibility. A seems more about catching issues late rather than making requirements visible upfront. So B and D make the most sense for visibility and transparency in practice.

A/D? Running tests early (A) highlights gaps before Sprint end, making issues obvious. Plus, putting non-functional stuff in the Product Backlog (D) keeps them visible and open for discussion during refinement.

Option B makes the most sense since the team agrees on the scope and tasks during Sprint Planning. Before that, the backlog isn’t finalized, and during the Sprint, it’s just updated.

It’s definitely B. The Sprint Backlog is created during the Sprint Planning meeting when the team selects Product Backlog items and figures out how to deliver them. Before that, there’s no concrete Sprint Backlog—just the Product Backlog. D is about updating the Sprint Backlog during the Sprint, but the initial creation happens at Sprint Planning. A and C don’t fit because it’s not made at the very start of the project or before planning. So, the key is focusing on when it first comes together, which is during Sprint Planning.

B. The Sprint Goal being obsolete means the whole Sprint loses meaning, so cancelling is logical. Other reasons like difficulty or unfinished work don't justify stopping the Sprint early.

Option B makes the most sense since the Sprint’s purpose is tied to that goal. If it’s no longer valid, continuing the Sprint wastes effort. Option D isn’t really a reason to cancel—unfinished work is normal, the team just adapts. Plus, A and C don’t align with Scrum roles or values; the dev team can always negotiate scope, and sales priorities don’t override the Sprint Goal. The Guide is pretty clear that only the Product Owner cancels when the Sprint Goal becomes obsolete, regardless of what the team thinks or if some tasks remain unfinished.

Not B, because the Product Owner typically focuses on the product backlog, not team assignments. Letting developers split up themselves (C) could cause imbalances, so A seems like a practical way to keep skills balanced across teams.

A imo, because just letting developers pick teams (C) might create imbalanced groups or silos. The Scrum Master should make sure the teams are cross-functional with all necessary skills covered. B feels off since the Product Owner’s role is more about managing the backlog, not team structure. So, organizing by skill sets in A seems more practical to form balanced teams that can handle end-to-end work without depending too much on guesswork from developers themselves.

Option A is key because retrospectives focus on process improvements for the next Sprint. Option D feels off since acceptance criteria usually get sorted during backlog refinement or planning, not retrospectives.

B imo because the Product Backlog order is usually handled during refinement or Sprint Planning, not retrospectives. The retro is more about how the team works together and what can be improved next sprint, so C fits better there. Also, D feels more like a Planning topic since it’s about defining work upfront, not reflecting on past sprints. So A and C seem like the most independent and clear choices for retrospective discussions.

Option B, because integrated increments give a clearer, collective view for all stakeholders.

B. Integrating every Sprint keeps the product in a usable state and helps catch issues early, which fits Scrum’s focus on transparency and inspection. Waiting or skipping can create hidden problems later.

Maybe A, since it aligns with the official Scrum Guide numbers exactly.

A for sure, the “7 plus or minus 3” clearly matches Scrum’s recommended size.

Option A, B, and D seem to be the practical trio here. Consulting with the team (A) helps surface new info and ideas on tackling issues. Prioritizing (B) prevents spreading efforts too thin over minor blockers. Alerting management (D) is key because some impediments are beyond the Scrum Master's direct influence and need higher-level support. Option C feels like adding unnecessary complexity without clear evidence that project managers are the right group to involve. This approach keeps things focused and action-driven.

B, D, and A make sense since prioritizing and alerting management helps clear blockers.

A imo, because if the item is truly important, swapping something of equal size keeps the Sprint balanced without ignoring the CEO’s request or breaking Scrum rules.

D imo, the team shouldn't mess with the current Sprint once it's started. They should keep focus and add new requests to the next Sprint after proper planning.

Maybe B, since the Scrum Master and Product Owner can join but aren’t required to attend daily.

B imo, the Development Team is the core group required since they’re the ones doing the work and coordinating daily. Scrum Master and Product Owner attend only if needed, not mandatory.

A/E/C? Sprint Review, Daily Scrum, and Sprint Retrospective all focus on inspecting and adapting work regularly, which fits the feedback loop idea. Refinement Meeting is more about preparing the backlog, not really feedback. Release Planning sounds like a traditional waterfall element, not a Scrum feedback loop. So, A, C, and E seem to be the official Scrum feedback loops here.

Maybe A, C, and E—Release Planning and Refinement aren't official Scrum events, so likely not feedback loops.

Yeah, I’d go with A here. The main point of a Sprint is to create something valuable and usable by the end, even if learning and adaptation happen too. So it’s not just about the process but about delivering that increment, making A the better choice.

C imo. The Sprint does aim to produce a usable increment, but saying its purpose is solely that might be too narrow. A Sprint also focuses on learning and adapting, not just output. So, calling it True feels a bit off since the question simplifies the Sprint’s whole purpose to just producing an increment.

B, because Scrum promotes ongoing collaboration beyond just Sprint Reviews.

B imo, the question worded it as “only allowed,” which is too strict. Scrum values collaboration anytime, so restricting meetings to Sprint Review alone wouldn’t make sense.

I think it’s safer to go with B here. The Sprint Backlog mainly lists the tasks and Product Backlog items for the sprint, but the Sprint Goal is more like a separate purpose statement from Sprint Planning. It guides the team but isn’t necessarily included inside the backlog itself, so saying it’s “inside” the Sprint Backlog might be too literal.

It’s A. The Sprint Backlog definitely comes from Sprint Planning and includes all the work planned for the sprint, but the Sprint Goal is also created during that session as a key focus. The Guide treats the Sprint Goal as an integral part of the Sprint Backlog since it provides the why behind the planned work, not just a separate note. So even if it’s not a backlog item, it’s still part of what makes up the Sprint Backlog in a broader sense.