SPHR Practice Questions (2026) — Free Sample Questions with Answers

Answer: A

Aggregate the layoffs, notify before May, and address the March group's lack of notice: Correct. SPHR 1.12 — together the layoffs total 75 employees, about 42% of the site, which meets the mass-layoff test. Because they share one cause within 90 days, they are aggregated, so notice is owed to both groups; the March employees did not receive it, creating back-pay exposure that counsel should address now.

Rely on the unforeseeable business circumstances exception, since demand fell: Wrong exception: it requires a sudden, dramatic and unforeseeable event, which a gradual drop in demand is not, and even then it only shortens notice rather than removing it.

Proceed without notice, because each layoff on its own involves fewer than 50 employees: Ignores aggregation: layoffs within 90 days are combined when neither alone triggers WARN.

Give 60 days' notice to the May group only, since the March layoff has already passed: Understates the exposure: once the layoffs are aggregated, the March employees were also owed notice, so the missed notice must be addressed.

Under WARN, separate layoffs within any 90-day period are added together when each alone falls below the threshold, unless the employer shows separate and distinct causes; once aggregated, every affected group is owed notice.

Answer: A

Analyze the work drivers behind the claims, then redesign jobs and train managers to respond: Correct. SPHR 1.3 — the data point to organizational causes. Changing the work and teaching managers to respond, refer and protect confidentiality reduce the risk at its source.

Expand short-term disability coverage and assign a case manager to every mental health claim: Treats the claims after they occur; it does not change the workloads and manager responses that are driving them.

Launch a company-wide resilience app and a meditation challenge with prizes for participation: Individual-focused and too narrow: it asks employees to cope better with conditions the organization has not changed.

Expand the EAP to unlimited counseling sessions and promote it to employees in monthly emails: Addresses the symptom: more counseling helps individuals but leaves the workload drivers in place.

Treat rising mental health claims as a human capital risk with organizational causes: diagnose the work drivers, change them and equip managers, while keeping medical information confidential.

Answer: A

Embed the process in the HRIS, pay decisions and managers' goals: Correct. The change was never refrozen: systems and rewards still reinforce the old process, so they must be aligned with the new one (SPHR 1.9).

Restart the change with a new communication campaign explaining its benefits: Repeats the unfreezing stage when the gap is in reinforcing the change.

Let each department decide whether to keep the quarterly conversations: Abandons the change rather than fixing what is pulling managers back.

Repeat the manager training with more practice in coaching conversations: Managers already understand the process; the problem is reinforcement, not skill.

Lewin's refreeze stage: anchor a change in systems, rewards and accountability, or people revert to the old way.

Answer: 12.7 %

1. Budget variance % = (actual − budget) ÷ budget × 100.
2. Actual − budget = $1,398,000 − $1,240,000 = $158,000 (over budget, an unfavorable variance).
3. $158,000 ÷ $1,240,000 = 0.12742.
4. 0.12742 × 100 = 12.742%, which rounds to 12.7%. Common error: dividing by actual spend ($158,000 ÷ $1,398,000) gives 11.3%.

Budget variance is measured against the budget: (actual − budget) ÷ budget × 100; explain the business driver of any large variance.

Answer: B

Support the partnership because serving more residents in six new communities advances the mission: Ignores the conflict between the staffing condition and the mission; growth alone does not equal mission fit.

Assess how minimum staffing would affect care quality, turnover and mission, and outline alternative terms: Correct. The CHRO tests the opportunity against mission and values with evidence on the people consequences and gives the board options, not a reflex yes or no (SPHR 1.1).

Defer to the CFO's assessment because the partnership is primarily a financing decision: Abdicates HR's role: the condition is a staffing requirement with direct workforce and mission consequences.

Oppose the partnership outright because any staffing below current levels contradicts the organization's values: A conclusion without analysis; the board needs the size of the risk and possible alternative terms.

When a growth opportunity conflicts with stated values, senior HR quantifies the people and mission impact and frames alternatives for the decision-makers.

Answer: Permanently shutting down a 60-employee distribution center, ending all 60 jobs in the same week: Plant closing; Shutting down one production line at a 500-employee plant, ending 55 jobs, while the rest of the plant keeps running: Plant closing; Laying off 520 of the 900 employees at the main plant for an expected 8 months while the plant keeps operating: Mass layoff; Laying off 70 of the 200 employees at a molding plant for 9 months while the plant keeps operating: Mass layoff; Laying off 80 of the 300 employees at an assembly plant for 9 months while the plant keeps operating: Neither; Laying off 150 of the 400 employees at a finishing plant for 4 months, with a firm recall date: Neither

Plant closing = shutdown of a site or operating unit with 50+ losses; mass layoff = 500+ losses, or 50–499 that are at least 33% of the site; layoffs of 6 months or less are not employment losses.

Answer: 66.7 %

1. Impact ratio = selection rate of the lower-rate group ÷ selection rate of the highest-rate group.
2. Selection rate, age 40 or older = 24 ÷ 120 = 0.20 (20%). Selection rate, under 40 = 48 ÷ 160 = 0.30 (30%).
3. Impact ratio = 0.20 ÷ 0.30 = 0.6667, or 66.7%.
4. 66.7% is below 80%, so under the four-fifths rule this is evidence of adverse impact that calls for review of the selection process.

Divide the lower group's selection rate by the highest group's; a result under 80% (four-fifths) is generally treated as evidence of adverse impact.

Answer: B

Set separate passing scores on the physical ability test for men and women so that pass rates are equal: Illegal: Title VII §703(l) prohibits adjusting scores or using different cutoffs on the basis of sex.

Review the validity evidence for the physical ability test and look for less discriminatory alternatives: Correct. Impact ratios: assessment 54/60 = 0.90, interview 46/50 = 0.92, physical test 48/80 = 0.60. Only the physical test falls below four-fifths, so it must be shown job-related and consistent with business necessity, and less discriminatory alternatives should be considered (Title VII; UGESP 29 CFR 1607).

Replace the entire selection process, because adverse impact anywhere in it exposes the whole process: Overbroad: the data isolate the problem to one step; the other steps pass the four-fifths screen.

Drop the online assessment, because it is the first step and screens out the most women overall: Wrong step: the assessment's impact ratio is 0.90, above four-fifths; the physical test (0.60) is the source.

Compute an impact ratio for each step; a step below 80% needs validation evidence (job-related, business necessity) and a search for less discriminatory alternatives, never group-based score adjustment.

Answer: A

Mapleford must give notice: the 150 job losses are a mass layoff occurring on or before the date of sale: Correct. Under 20 CFR 639.4(c), the seller is responsible for notice of a plant closing or mass layoff up to and including the effective date of the sale. 150 of 420 (36%) at one site is a mass layoff (50–499 employees and at least 33%).

No notice is needed, because the plant will keep operating and therefore no plant closing will occur: Overlooks the mass-layoff trigger: WARN covers mass layoffs at a site that stays open, not only plant closings.

No notice is needed, because WARN exempts job losses that result from the sale of all or part of a business: There is no sale-of-business exemption for employment losses; a sale alone triggers no notice only when employees keep their jobs.

Harbor must give the 60-day notice, because Harbor decided which of the plant's employees it would not hire: Wrong party: the buyer is responsible only for closings or layoffs that occur after the effective date of the sale.

In a sale of business, WARN notice for losses up to and including the closing date is the seller's duty; losses after the closing are the buyer's. A site that stays open can still have a mass layoff.

Answer: A

Give the union notice and bargain over the decision, since it turns on labor costs: Correct. SPHR 3.10 / 1.12 — replacing unit employees with a contractor doing the same work under similar conditions to save labor costs is a mandatory subject of bargaining (Fibreboard), so the decision itself, not just its effects, must be bargained before it is made.

Announce the contract and bargain only over effects such as severance and recall: Effects-only bargaining fits decisions such as a partial closure that change the scope of the business; substituting a contractor's crew for the same work is bargainable as a decision.

Proceed without bargaining, because the agreement does not restrict subcontracting: Silence is not a waiver; a union waives its bargaining right only through clear and unmistakable language.

Sign the vendor contract first, then present it to the union for review and comment: Presenting a decision already made is a fait accompli, which does not meet the duty to bargain in good faith.

Subcontracting that replaces bargaining-unit employees with contractors doing the same work, mainly to cut labor costs, is a mandatory subject: give notice and bargain over the decision before acting.

Answer: A

Unit goals rewarded cost and efficiency, with no shared measure tied to on-time delivery: Correct. SPHR 3.5 — each unit optimized its own cost or efficiency metric (e.g., cheaper materials, cheaper freight), and none was accountable for the enterprise delivery objective.

Bonus payouts were too high and reduced the funds available for operations: No evidence in the data; the issue is what the goals measured, not payout size.

Customer Service failed to resolve enough first calls, which caused the rise in customer churn: Customer Service met its goal; the data does not support blaming that unit.

Unit goals were set too low and should all be raised by the same percentage: Raising the same misaligned targets would push units further toward cost over delivery.

Goals that each unit can meet alone can still miss the enterprise objective; include shared measures tied to the strategic outcome.

Answer: D

Implement the five-day mandate with a 90-day transition period for adjustment: Executes the mandate despite clear evidence that it threatens the top retention driver.

Advise the CEO to keep the current hybrid policy unchanged, since retention data favor it: Ignores the CEO's collaboration concern; protecting retention without addressing the business goal will not win support.

Survey employees on their preferences and let the majority choose the policy: Abdicates a business decision; a vote does not weigh collaboration or client needs.

Propose a role-based hybrid model with set collaboration days and measure results: Correct. SPHR 3.4 — it addresses the CEO's real concern (collaboration) while protecting the retention driver the data identifies, and it builds in measurement.

A senior HR leader reframes an executive directive around its underlying goal and the evidence, offering an option that meets the goal with less talent risk.

Answer: D

Engineering's gap reflects its workforce demographics rather than its management practices: Unsupported: the data contain no demographic breakdown, and the low items (voice and fair assignments) describe how the division is managed.

The company-wide inclusion programs have failed and should be redesigned for every division: Overgeneralizes: three of four divisions score well under the same programs.

Engineering's higher turnover is best explained by the tight labor market for software talent: The market might raise turnover, but it does not explain low voice and fairness scores or the low promotion rate.

Engineering has a local problem that calls for a focused review of its management practices: Correct. SPHR 3.1 — the same programs produced good results in three divisions, so the gap is local. Low voice and fairness scores, high turnover and low promotion all point to Engineering's own practices, which need diagnosis before any fix.

When identical programs yield different results by unit, the cause is usually local practice; diagnose that unit before redesigning everything or taking action against individuals.

Answer: C

Replace the lineup with the recordkeeper's target-date funds to simplify choices: Swapping in one provider's funds without a documented comparison of fees and performance repeats the process failure that creates fiduciary exposure.

Add several low-cost funds while keeping current options for continuity: Leaves the overpriced options in place and still lacks a prudent review process.

Establish a documented review process that benchmarks fees and performance: Correct. ERISA fiduciaries must act prudently and solely in participants' interest, which includes monitoring investment options and fees. Participant direction does not remove the duty to select and monitor the menu, and a documented, regular process is the core evidence of prudence (SPHR 4.3; ERISA §404(a)).

Send participants a fee disclosure and let them decide whether to switch: Fee disclosure is required, but it does not satisfy the committee's duty to monitor the lineup.

Under ERISA, the plan committee owns the investment menu: a documented, regular review of options and fees is required even when participants direct their own accounts.

Answer: 344250 dollars

1. Annualized merit cost = Σ (base payroll × merit %).
2. Exceeds: $3,200,000 × 0.045 = $144,000. Meets: $10,500,000 × 0.030 = $315,000. Below: $600,000 × 0 = $0.
3. Annualized total = $144,000 + $315,000 = $459,000.
4. Increases run April–December, 9 of 12 months: $459,000 × 9 ÷ 12 = $344,250.
5. Common error: reporting the full annualized cost of $459,000 ignores the April 1 effective date.

Merit cost in the current year = annualized increase × months in effect ÷ 12; the annualized figure is the cost carried into next year's base.

Answer: B

Average all three medians equally, then age the result to January 2027: Includes a mismatched source with supervisory scope, inflating the rate above the true individual-contributor market.

Exclude Survey C, age A and B to the structure date, then blend them: Correct. Credible market rates rest on close job matches and adequate samples. Survey C's supervisory scope and nine organizations make it unreliable, and aging A and B to January 1, 2027 puts the remaining sources on a common date before blending (SPHR 4.2; 1.5 credible evidence).

Use Survey A alone because it has the largest and newest sample: Discards a strong, valid match; Survey B is usable once it is aged to the structure date.

Give Survey C half the weight of A and B, then age the blended result to 2027: Down-weighting does not cure a poor match: Survey C prices a supervisory job from only nine organizations, so any weight still inflates the rate.

Screen survey sources for job-match quality and sample size, age all data to a common effective date, and only then blend.

Answer: 2.2 cases per 100 FTE

1. Incident rate = recordable cases × 200,000 ÷ total hours worked.
2. Total hours = 592 × 2,000 = 1,184,000.
3. Only the 13 recordable cases count; first-aid-only cases are not recordable.
4. 13 × 200,000 ÷ 1,184,000 = 2,600,000 ÷ 1,184,000 = 2.196, which rounds to 2.2.

The OSHA incident rate is recordable cases × 200,000 ÷ hours worked; 200,000 is 100 full-time workers at 2,000 hours, and first-aid-only cases are excluded.