Police Pay
National sift 2026

Police SJT
Example Questions

Fourteen original situational judgement test examples in the National Sift format, with every action rated on the official five-point scale and the reasoning behind each rating. Try the first one interactively, read the rest at your own pace, then mark yourself against the answer key.

Independent information, not advice · Sources checked 22 October 2026 · England and Wales unless stated

Short answer: what does a police SJT example look like?

A short work scenario, then four possible actions. You rate each action on its own, from Counterproductive to Very effective, as your first response, using only what the scenario tells you. Good answers protect people first, stay proportionate, keep to the facts, own mistakes and treat everyone fairly. The best action is often not the longest. These examples are ours, not College of Policing questions.

Contents
How to Use TheseThe Rating ScaleExample 1: Try ItExamples 2 to 14Answer KeyMark YourselfLongest-Answer TrapPatterns Across AnswersSame Rating TwiceReviewing a MissCompetency MapThe College's ExamplesFive-Question CheckMake Your OwnIn the Real TestMore PracticeMythsNot Verified FAQs Sources

For police constable applicants in England and Wales preparing for the situational judgement test (SJT), the first of the two exercises in the College of Policing's National Sift. Format facts are from the College's candidate guidance, updated 1 June 2026 and checked on 22 October 2026. The scenarios and ratings are PolicePay's own: the College does not publish its questions or answer key.

How to use these SJT examples

Reading a model answer straight away teaches you less than committing to your own rating first. For each example:

  1. Read the scenario once and ask what the main priority is. The College suggests asking what a successful outcome would look like.
  2. Rate each action on its own. Write A to D on paper with a rating from 1 (Counterproductive) to 5 (Very effective) before you open the answers.
  3. Open the model ratings and compare. A one-point difference is a near miss. Two points or more means your reasoning differs and is worth understanding.
  4. Read the trap and the takeaway. The same handful of rules decides most scenarios, so the takeaways are the part worth remembering.

The first example is interactive: rate the four actions on screen and check your answers. The other 13 show the answers behind a button so you can try them first. If you prefer to do them as a set, write all your ratings down and use the answer key and the marking method at the end. When you have finished, the free SJT practice test has 15 more scenarios that score you automatically.

The official SJT rating scale

These are the College of Policing's own definitions, which you can view at any point during the real exercise. Numbers 1 to 5 are added here for convenience; the real test uses the labels.

Rating What the College says it means
1. Counterproductive An inappropriate action that will have a negative impact or make the situation worse.
2. Ineffective A poor action which will not help to resolve the situation.
3. Slightly effective An action that will have a small positive impact on the situation.
4. Effective A reasonable action that will help to resolve the situation.
5. Very effective One of the best actions that could be taken to resolve the situation.

Four rules from the same guidance shape every answer below:

  • Rate each action independently of the other three.
  • You can give the same rating to more than one action and you do not have to use the full range.
  • Judge each action as your first response to the scenario.
  • Base your rating only on the information in the scenario, not on what might also be going on.

The two middle points are where most marks are won or lost. Slightly effective means the action does some good. Ineffective means it will not help. Ask of every action: does it move the situation forward at all? If yes, it is at least Slightly effective. If no, it is Ineffective or worse.

Example 1: A friend asks you to look up a car

What it tests: Integrity when someone you care about asks for a favour. Rate all four actions, then check your answers to see the model ratings and the reasoning.

Free sample scenario

A friend asks you to look up a car

A close friend messages you on your day off. A car has been parked outside her house for three days and she thinks it might belong to a man who has been bothering her sister. She sends you the number plate and asks you to 'just run it' on the police system so she knows who owns it.

Rate each action on its own, from 1 (Counterproductive) to 5 (Very effective). You can give the same rating to more than one action.

Action A: Run the plate when you are next on duty but only tell her whether it is the man she is worried about. She gets no names or addresses from you and her sister may be protected sooner.
Action B: Say no to the check and explain how her sister can report the man.
Action C: Tell her you are not allowed to do that and leave it there.
Action D: Ask an on-duty colleague to run it as a favour so it is not on your log-in.

Rate all four actions to check your answers.
The trap and the takeaway

Trap: Rating the 'only tell her yes or no' option as a sensible compromise. A partial misuse is still misuse, however reasonable the explanation sounds.

Takeaway: Refuse the shortcut and point to the proper route for the real concern.

Read example 1 as text

A close friend messages you on your day off. A car has been parked outside her house for three days and she thinks it might belong to a man who has been bothering her sister. She sends you the number plate and asks you to 'just run it' on the police system so she knows who owns it.

  1. A. Run the plate when you are next on duty but only tell her whether it is the man she is worried about. She gets no names or addresses from you and her sister may be protected sooner.

    1. Counterproductive

    Searching police systems for a personal reason is a misuse of information however little you pass on. It puts your career at risk and could damage any later investigation of a real offence. This makes things worse.

  2. B. Say no to the check and explain how her sister can report the man.

    5. Very effective

    Holds the line on integrity and deals with the real worry. Her sister may be at risk, so pointing to the proper reporting route protects people without a shortcut. Short, but it does everything needed.

  3. C. Tell her you are not allowed to do that and leave it there.

    2. Ineffective

    Correct about the rule but it ignores a possible safeguarding concern. Saying no is right; saying only no leaves the problem untouched.

  4. D. Ask an on-duty colleague to run it as a favour so it is not on your log-in.

    1. Counterproductive

    The same misuse of information with a colleague drawn into it as well. Hiding the search makes it more serious, not less.

Examples 2 to 14 with answers

Each example lists the CVF value and competency it leans on. Rate A to D yourself, then open the answers.

Example 2 · Public service · We are emotionally aware

Post piling up at an older neighbour's door

On a routine foot patrol, a delivery driver stops you. He says the older man at number 14 usually answers the door but post has been piling up behind it for four days and the curtains have not moved. The driver has to leave for his next drop.

  1. A Go to number 14 now, knock, look through the letterbox and windows for any sign of a problem and try to get an answer before deciding anything else.
  2. B Note it and pass it to the neighbourhood team to look at later in the week.
  3. C Force entry straight away to check on him.
  4. D Ask the neighbours whether they have a key or a family contact.
Show the model ratings and reasoning

A 5. Very effective

Acts promptly and in person on a credible welfare concern. It is the proportionate first step and keeps the man's safety first.

B 2. Ineffective

A man who may have fallen or be ill could be waiting days. Recording it is not wrong in itself, but delay here could cost his life.

C 3. Slightly effective

Concern for life can justify entry, so this is not counterproductive, but it skips quick checks (knocking, neighbours, a key holder) that might find him well. It may be needed, just not as the very first move.

D 4. Effective

Sensible and quick. It may give you a faster safe way in. On its own it delays checking the house itself, so it sits just below going to the door.

What it tests: Spotting when a routine report is really a risk to someone's life.

The trap: Marking the forced entry as Counterproductive. It is heavy for a first step, but it does protect life, so it still helps.

Takeaway: Where someone may be at risk, act now and in person; save process for afterwards.

Example 3 · Respect and empathy · We are emotionally aware

A child offers to interpret

You attend a report of a damaged front window at a flat. The woman who called speaks little English. Her ten-year-old son speaks it well and offers to translate. The woman looks anxious and keeps glancing at the boy. You do not know yet how the window was broken.

  1. A Let the son translate so you can take the details quickly.
  2. B Use a telephone interpreter and speak to the woman away from her son.
  3. C Use a translation app on your phone so she can speak for herself, typing short questions and showing her the screen to check she has understood each one before you move on.
  4. D Ask her to come to the station another day when an interpreter can be booked.
Show the model ratings and reasoning

A 2. Ineffective

Quick, but it puts a child in an adult conversation that may involve something frightening or private, such as domestic abuse. You also cannot check what is being said.

B 5. Very effective

Gives the woman a fair chance to explain in her own words and keeps the child out of it. Telephone interpreting makes this practical straight away.

C 3. Slightly effective

Better than using the child and it lets her speak for herself, but apps can get important details wrong. Fine for simple points, weak for anything sensitive.

D 2. Ineffective

Puts the burden on her and leaves any risk unexplored today. If something serious is going on, delay could leave her or the boy unprotected.

What it tests: Treating someone fairly when language gets in the way.

The trap: Seeing the son as the efficient, helpful option. Efficiency is not the test when you do not yet know what happened.

Takeaway: Give every person a fair chance to speak for themselves and keep children out of adult matters.

Example 4 · Public service · We take ownership

The call-back you forgot

Last week you told a shop owner who had been the victim of a theft that you would ring her by Friday with an update. It is now Tuesday and you realise you forgot. You have no real progress to report. Your shift is busy.

  1. A Ring her today, apologise for missing Friday, explain honestly that there is no progress yet and agree when you will next update her.
  2. B Wait until there is progress so you have something useful to tell her.
  3. C Email her the crime reference number and say the case is ongoing.
  4. D Ask a colleague on the next shift to ring her instead.
Show the model ratings and reasoning

A 5. Very effective

Owns the mistake quickly and openly, gives her accurate information and rebuilds trust with a clear next step.

B 2. Ineffective

There may never be progress. Silence makes a broken promise worse and tells her she does not matter.

C 3. Slightly effective

At least she hears something, but it skips the apology and the honest update she was promised. Better than nothing, weaker than a call.

D 2. Ineffective

Hands your promise to someone without the context. It may still reach her, but it avoids responsibility for your own commitment.

What it tests: Owning your own mistake rather than hiding it.

The trap: Thinking 'I have nothing new to say' justifies waiting. Keeping your word is the point.

Takeaway: Own errors early, explain honestly and set the next step.

Example 5 · Courage · We take ownership

A photo posted from the office

A colleague posts a light-hearted photo of the team on their personal social media account. In the background you can clearly see a whiteboard with names and addresses connected to an ongoing case. The post has been up for about twenty minutes.

  1. A Tell the colleague now, ask them to delete it and tell your supervisor.
  2. B Comment publicly on the post asking for it to be taken down, so that anyone who has already seen it knows the team is dealing with the problem.
  3. C Message the colleague privately to take it down.
  4. D Report the colleague to Professional Standards without speaking to them.
Show the model ratings and reasoning

A 5. Very effective

Fast action limits the harm. Telling a supervisor is right because personal information about real people may have been exposed and someone needs to assess the risk. Direct without being punitive.

B 1. Counterproductive

Draws more attention to the image in public, which is the opposite of what is needed. The aim is to reduce exposure, not add to it.

C 4. Effective

Gets the image removed quickly, which matters most. It misses that a supervisor may need to assess whether anyone is now at risk, so it falls just short.

D 2. Ineffective

The image stays up while a formal process starts. The priority is getting it removed; formal steps can follow if needed.

What it tests: Speaking up quickly when information could put people at risk.

The trap: Thinking the most formal route is always the 'courageous' one. Here speed matters most.

Takeaway: Stop the harm first, then make sure the right person knows.

Example 6 · Public service · We are innovative and open-minded

Nobody comes to the community meeting

Your team runs a monthly community meeting at 2pm on a weekday. Attendance has fallen to two or three people. A local parent tells you that most working families and younger residents cannot come at that time. Your sergeant set the time and is happy with it.

  1. A Ask residents which times suit them, then suggest a trial to your sergeant.
  2. B Keep the time as it is, as the sergeant set it.
  3. C Move the meeting to an evening yourself and tell your sergeant afterwards.
  4. D Mention the parent's comment to your sergeant in passing at the end of a shift, saying that a local resident thinks some people cannot make the current time.
Show the model ratings and reasoning

A 5. Very effective

Opens up a better way of serving the community and brings evidence to the person who decides. Constructive, not a challenge for its own sake.

B 2. Ineffective

Respects the chain of command but leaves most of the community unheard. Doing nothing with useful feedback is a missed chance to improve.

C 2. Ineffective

The idea may be right, but changing the arrangement without agreement undermines the team and may clash with plans you do not know about.

D 3. Slightly effective

Passes the feedback on, which helps a little, but without any evidence or suggestion it is easy to dismiss and nothing is likely to change.

What it tests: Being open to better ways of working while working with your team.

The trap: Rating the 'just do it yourself' option highly because it fixes the problem. How you get there matters too.

Takeaway: Bring ideas with evidence to the person who decides.

Example 7 · Respect and empathy · We analyse critically

Two drivers, two stories

You attend a minor car park collision with no injuries. Each driver says the other reversed into them. One is calm and polite; the other is angry and swearing at you. A shop overlooking the car park has a camera above its door.

  1. A Accept the calm driver's account. He has been polite and consistent throughout, while the other driver is swearing at you, which suggests he is the less reliable of the two.
  2. B Take both accounts separately and ask the shop about its camera.
  3. C Tell both drivers to swap details and go through their insurers.
  4. D Warn the angry driver you will arrest him if he keeps swearing.
Show the model ratings and reasoning

A 1. Counterproductive

Demeanour is not evidence. Deciding fault on who is nicer is unfair and could be plain wrong.

B 5. Very effective

Gathers the facts that can settle it, treats both drivers the same and keeps you calm with the angry one. Exactly what the situation needs.

C 3. Slightly effective

For a minor collision with no injuries this is often what happens, so it helps a little. It misses easy evidence that would help everyone, including the insurers.

D 2. Ineffective

His behaviour may need addressing, but leading with a threat is likely to raise the temperature. Calmly setting expectations would work better.

What it tests: Basing decisions on evidence, not on who you find likeable.

The trap: Giving the polite driver the benefit of the doubt without noticing it.

Takeaway: Look for the facts that settle it and treat everyone the same.

Example 8 · Respect and empathy · We support and inspire

A colleague after a difficult call

A colleague who joined at the same time as you returns from attending the sudden death of a baby. In the locker room she is quiet and you can see she has been crying. She says she is 'fine' and has to get on with her paperwork. Your shift ends in an hour.

  1. A Sit with her for a few minutes and ask how she is.
  2. B Take her at her word that she is fine and leave her to get on with her paperwork, as pushing someone to talk before they are ready can make things worse.
  3. C Let your supervisor know she attended a very distressing call.
  4. D Tell her she will get used to calls like that.
Show the model ratings and reasoning

A 5. Very effective

Notices how she is and offers support without forcing it. Simple kindness from a peer can make a real difference and it leaves the choice to talk with her.

B 2. Ineffective

Respecting her wishes matters, but taking 'fine' at face value after a call like that risks leaving her alone with it. Checking in is not the same as pushing.

C 4. Effective

Helpful, as supervisors can arrange debriefs and support. On its own it is a little impersonal; ideally you would also check in with her yourself.

D 1. Counterproductive

Minimises what she is feeling and suggests being upset is a weakness. It may make her less likely to ask for help.

What it tests: Noticing when a colleague is struggling and supporting them.

The trap: Treating 'she said she was fine' as the end of the matter, especially when the option gives a plausible reason.

Takeaway: Check in, offer support and point to the help that exists.

Example 9 · Courage · We take ownership

A wallet handed in

A member of the public hands you a wallet found in the street. It holds £120 in cash and a driving licence with an address ten minutes away. Your colleague suggests not booking it in as found property and just dropping it round on your way past later, 'to save the paperwork'.

  1. A Book it in, count the cash with your colleague and contact the owner.
  2. B Agree to drop it round later without booking it in. The owner gets it back quickly, nobody is harmed and you will both be there to vouch for each other if anyone ever asks.
  3. C Book it in, then leave it for the property office to deal with.
  4. D Tell your colleague you are uncomfortable and let them decide.
Show the model ratings and reasoning

A 5. Very effective

Keeps a clear record of property and cash, protects both of you from any later question and still gets the wallet back to its owner quickly.

B 1. Counterproductive

Handling cash with no record leaves you, your colleague and the owner unprotected if anything goes missing or is disputed. A shortcut with property is exactly where integrity is tested.

C 4. Effective

Correct and safe. It is a little slower for the owner than also trying to contact them yourself, so it sits just below the best response.

D 2. Ineffective

Voicing discomfort is a start, but handing the decision to the person proposing the shortcut does not stop it. You share responsibility for the property.

What it tests: Keeping to the honest process when a shortcut seems harmless.

The trap: Being persuaded by the reasons in the long option. A good reason attached to a shortcut does not make it a good action.

Takeaway: With property and money, record first. Speed is never a reason to skip the record.

Example 10 · Respect and empathy · We are emotionally aware

A slur from a neighbour

A man comes to the front counter. He says his neighbour shouted a racial slur at him during a parking dispute yesterday. He says he does not want 'to cause trouble' and only wants it noted. The station is busy and there is a queue behind him.

  1. A Note his details on a slip and tell him that, as he does not want action and it was a one-off during a parking row, there is not much more the police can do about it.
  2. B Take him somewhere private, record it properly and explain his options.
  3. C Record the report accurately, tell him someone will be in touch and call the next person.
  4. D Ask a colleague to cover the counter so you can take a full account from him now.
Show the model ratings and reasoning

A 1. Counterproductive

Minimises a possible hate incident and tells him reporting was pointless. It may stop him or others coming forward again, which makes things worse.

B 5. Very effective

Treats the report seriously and respects his wishes while making sure he knows what support and choices exist. The record matters even if he wants no further action.

C 3. Slightly effective

Getting an accurate record is important, so this helps. But it leaves him without any explanation or support at the moment he has come in.

D 4. Effective

Gives him time and attention and gets a full account. It does not on its own explain his options, so it is just short of the best response.

What it tests: Taking a report seriously when the person playing it down may be the victim.

The trap: Accepting 'I don't want to cause trouble' as a reason to do less. You can respect his wishes and still record and support properly.

Takeaway: Respect the person's wishes, but never let that become a reason to minimise.

Example 11 · Public service · We collaborate

One task too many

Your sergeant gives you a new enquiry to finish by the end of the shift. You already have two urgent statements to take today for a case going to court next week. You know you cannot do all three properly in the time left.

  1. A Tell your sergeant now about the two statements for next week's court case, explain that you cannot do all three properly and ask which to prioritise.
  2. B Say nothing and rush the statements at the end of the shift.
  3. C Ask a colleague whether they could take one of the statements for you.
  4. D Tell your sergeant you cannot take on any more work.
Show the model ratings and reasoning

A 5. Very effective

Honest and early. The sergeant can only plan the team's work if they know what you are carrying and the court case is protected.

B 1. Counterproductive

Rushed statements for a court case can damage the case and let down the witnesses and victim. Staying quiet to look capable makes the situation worse.

C 3. Slightly effective

Could ease the load, but it reorganises work without the person who sets priorities knowing. Helpful in part only.

D 2. Ineffective

Honest about capacity, but a flat refusal with no detail gives your sergeant nothing to work with. Explaining what you have on is what makes it useful.

What it tests: Being honest about capacity so the team can plan.

The trap: Seeing 'say nothing and work faster' as taking ownership. Ownership includes telling people when quality is at risk.

Takeaway: Raise problems early, with the detail the decision-maker needs.

Example 12 · Public service · We analyse critically

An accusation on social media

A post on a local community page names a man in the area and says he is behind a run of shed break-ins. Several residents have messaged the neighbourhood team asking why he has not been arrested. You have seen no evidence linking him to the break-ins.

  1. A Arrest the man to reassure residents.
  2. B Reply to the residents that the break-ins are being investigated, ask anyone with information to report it through the proper channels and avoid naming or discussing any individual.
  3. C Check whether the man's name appears in any of the break-in reports.
  4. D Ignore the post, as what people write online is not a police matter.
Show the model ratings and reasoning

A 1. Counterproductive

There are no grounds for an arrest in the scenario. Arresting someone to calm public opinion is unfair to him and could expose him to more harm. Short and clearly wrong.

B 4. Effective

Reassures the public without feeding the accusation and encourages real evidence to come in. It does not address any risk to the named man, so it is not quite the whole answer.

C 4. Effective

A sensible fact check before anything else happens. It does not deal with the residents' concerns or the post itself, so it is useful but partial.

D 2. Ineffective

Online accusations can lead to harassment or worse. Ignoring it leaves both the residents' worries and any risk to the man unaddressed.

What it tests: Keeping to evidence under public pressure.

The trap: Looking for a Very effective action that is not there. Here two partial actions are both Effective and nothing deserves the top rating.

Takeaway: You do not have to use the full scale. Rate what each action actually achieves.

Example 13 · Respect and empathy · We support and inspire

A colleague asks you to keep a secret

A colleague who joined with you tells you privately that she has dyslexia and is struggling to finish her written reports on time. She asks you to check her reports before she submits them and not to tell anyone, because she worries it will count against her.

  1. A Offer to help this week and explain that support is available if she asks.
  2. B Agree to check and correct all her reports so nobody notices.
  3. C Tell your supervisor straight away so she gets support.
  4. D Point her to the force's staff support for dyslexia, giving her the name of the team or network and explaining how she can contact them in confidence when she is ready.
Show the model ratings and reasoning

A 5. Very effective

Helps her now, respects her confidence and gently points her to the proper support, such as workplace adjustments, without taking the choice away from her.

B 2. Ineffective

Kind in intent but unsustainable. The reports stop being her own work and she never gets the support she is entitled to. It hides the problem rather than solving it.

C 2. Ineffective

The aim is good, but breaking her confidence without her agreement could damage her trust in you and in asking for help at all.

D 3. Slightly effective

Useful information, but on its own it is impersonal at the moment she has trusted you. It helps a little rather than a lot.

What it tests: Supporting a colleague while respecting their confidence.

The trap: Rating the 'do it all for her' option highly because it is generous. Support should help someone succeed on their own terms.

Takeaway: Help now, respect confidence and point to the proper support.

Example 14 · Courage · We take ownership

An instruction that worries you

Late at night you and a more experienced colleague find a heavily intoxicated young woman alone at a bus stop. She is struggling to stand and her phone is dead. Your colleague says a bus will be along in 20 minutes and you should leave her, as you have another call waiting.

  1. A Go along with your colleague, as they have more experience.
  2. B Tell your colleague you are not comfortable leaving her alone and suggest a safe option, such as getting her home or contacting someone she knows, before going to the other call.
  3. C Ask control whether the other call can wait while you deal with her.
  4. D Leave her, but go back after the other call to check she has gone.
Show the model ratings and reasoning

A 1. Counterproductive

Leaves a vulnerable person alone at night when she cannot look after herself. Experience is not a reason to stay silent about a clear risk.

B 5. Very effective

Raises the concern directly and respectfully with a practical alternative. Protecting a vulnerable person comes first.

C 4. Effective

A sensible way to resolve the competing demands through the right channel. It does not on its own challenge your colleague's view, but it helps.

D 2. Ineffective

Better than not returning, but the risk is in the next 20 minutes, not later. It does little to protect her.

What it tests: Speaking up to a more experienced colleague when someone is at risk.

The trap: Deferring to experience. The scale rewards protecting people, whoever suggests otherwise.

Takeaway: Courage means raising a concern respectfully, with a better option ready.

Original PolicePay scenarios. The model ratings are our reasoned judgement against the College's Competency and Values Framework, not the College's answer key, which is not published. Reasonable people can disagree with a rating by a point.

Answer key for all 14 examples

If you wrote your ratings down as a set, compare them here. The numbers are the model ratings for actions A to D, from 1 (Counterproductive) to 5 (Very effective).

Example A B C D
1. A friend asks you to look up a car 1521
2. Post piling up at an older neighbour's door 5234
3. A child offers to interpret 2532
4. The call-back you forgot 5232
5. A photo posted from the office 5142
6. Nobody comes to the community meeting 5223
7. Two drivers, two stories 1532
8. A colleague after a difficult call 5241
9. A wallet handed in 5142
10. A slur from a neighbour 1534
11. One task too many 5132
12. An accusation on social media 1442
13. A colleague asks you to keep a secret 5223
14. An instruction that worries you 1542

Across the 56 ratings on this page the model ratings are spread like this: Counterproductive 10; Ineffective 17; Slightly effective 8; Effective 8; Very effective 13. The scale is used in full across the set, but not in every scenario.

Mark yourself the way our practice test does

The College does not say how it marks individual ratings. Our free practice test uses distance from the model rating, because being close is better than being far off. You can apply the same method by hand:

Your rating vs ours Points What it usually means
Exact match3Same judgement
One point out2A reasonable difference of degree
Two points out1Your reasoning differs; read the explanation
Three or more out0A rule is being missed; find which one

Each example is worth 12 points (four actions at 3 each), so the full set is worth 168. Add up your points and divide by 168 for a percentage. This is a study aid only: the real result is a percentile against other applicants combined with your BSQ and no practice score predicts it.

More useful than the total is where you lost points. Mark each miss of two or more with the type of action it was (avoiding, dismissing, overreacting, going along with a shortcut, acting on an assumption). If one type keeps appearing, that is your fix. The patterns table below shows the usual range for each type.

The longest-answer trap

Many people rate highly the action that says the most. It feels thorough. The opposite habit, distrusting long options, is just as unreliable. We wrote these options so that length tells you nothing: sometimes the best action is the longest, sometimes the shortest and sometimes the longest is one of the worst, wrapped in convincing reasons.

5 of 14

examples where the longest action is also the best rated

6 of 14

examples where the longest action is Ineffective or Counterproductive

1

example with no Very effective action at all

Counted automatically from the 14 examples on this page.

We do not know whether the real SJT has any pattern in option length and you should not assume one either way. The point is to judge what an action does, not how it is written. Three habits help:

  • Strip the reasons. Reduce each option to its verb: "run the plate", "leave her", "arrest him". Then rate the verb.
  • Notice justifications. Phrases such as "so that nobody notices" or "as they have more experience" often explain away a poor action.
  • Do not reward detail for its own sake. A short action that protects people and deals with the problem beats a long one that does not.

Patterns across the answers

Put the examples side by side and the same kinds of action keep landing in the same part of the scale. These are PolicePay's teaching labels, not College categories, but they follow from the College's own scale definitions.

Type of action Usual range Example from this page
Deals with the whole problem: protects people, gets the facts, owns it, involves the right person Very effective Ringing the shop owner today to apologise and update her (example 4)
Sensible and proportionate but misses part of the problem Effective or Slightly effective Messaging the colleague privately without telling a supervisor (example 5)
Heavy or premature: right direction, wrong size or wrong moment Slightly effective or Ineffective Forcing entry before knocking or asking neighbours (example 2)
Avoids or hands on responsibility; waits without a reason Ineffective Waiting for progress before ringing the victim back (example 4)
Dismisses someone's feelings or concern Counterproductive or Ineffective "There is not much more the police can do" (example 10)
Goes along with a shortcut, a favour or misuse of information Counterproductive Dropping the wallet round without booking it in (example 9)
Acts on an assumption or on who seems nicer Counterproductive or Ineffective Arresting the man named online (example 12)
Kind in intent but takes over or hides the problem Ineffective Checking and correcting all a colleague's reports so nobody notices (example 13)

Notice two things. First, the "heavy" actions are rarely Counterproductive: forcing entry or reporting a colleague can still help, so they usually sit in the middle, just not at the top. Second, the worst ratings go to actions that break trust: misusing information, dismissing someone, or deciding without facts. If you remember one thing from this page, make it that difference.

Our free SJT practice test labels every action with one of these types and its results screen shows which type you misjudge most often. That is quicker than spotting the pattern by hand.

When two actions deserve the same rating

The College says you can give the same rating to more than one action. In 6 of the 14 examples on this page at least two actions share a rating. Three situations produce this most often:

  • Two different ways of avoiding the problem. In example 4, waiting for progress and handing the call to a colleague are both Ineffective, for slightly different reasons.
  • Two different misuses. In example 1, running the plate yourself and asking a colleague to run it are both Counterproductive.
  • Two partial answers. In example 12, replying to residents and checking the reports are both Effective and neither deserves the top rating on its own.

If you catch yourself nudging one action up or down only to separate it from another, stop. That is ranking and the real test asks you to rate. Our rate, don't rank trainer is built around this habit.

Worked review: what to do with a miss

Suppose on example 13 (the colleague with dyslexia) you rated B, "check and correct all her reports so nobody notices", as Very effective. The model rating is Ineffective: a miss of three points. Here is how to review it:

  1. Name what you rewarded. Probably kindness and loyalty. Those are good instincts.
  2. Name what you missed. The action hides the problem, makes her reports not her own and keeps her from support she is entitled to. It also cannot last.
  3. Find the rule. Support should help someone succeed on their own terms, not do the job for them. It is also worth weighing when you rate the College's second official example.
  4. Test the rule on another scenario. Look at example 9: agreeing to the shortcut "so nobody is harmed" fails for the same reason. Good intentions do not rescue a poor action.
  5. Write the rule down in a sentence and reread it before your next practice set.

Three or four reviews like this usually reveal the two or three rules that account for most of your misses. That is far more useful than doing another fifty scenarios without reviewing any.

Which competency and value each example leans on

The College says the SJT assesses the six CVF competencies. Each example below is tagged with the competency and value it leans on most, plus PolicePay's reasoning pattern. Use it to find more practice on a weak area.

Example Competency Value Reasoning pattern
1. A friend asks you to look up a car We take ownership Courage Integrity over convenience
2. Post piling up at an older neighbour's door We are emotionally aware Public service Protect people first
3. A child offers to interpret We are emotionally aware Respect and empathy Fair and respectful to everyone
4. The call-back you forgot We take ownership Public service Own it, don't drift it
5. A photo posted from the office We take ownership Courage Speak up early and directly
6. Nobody comes to the community meeting We are innovative and open-minded Public service Work with colleagues constructively
7. Two drivers, two stories We analyse critically Respect and empathy Check facts, don't guess
8. A colleague after a difficult call We support and inspire Respect and empathy Work with colleagues constructively
9. A wallet handed in We take ownership Courage Integrity over convenience
10. A slur from a neighbour We are emotionally aware Respect and empathy Fair and respectful to everyone
11. One task too many We collaborate Public service Own it, don't drift it
12. An accusation on social media We analyse critically Public service Check facts, don't guess
13. A colleague asks you to keep a secret We support and inspire Respect and empathy Work with colleagues constructively
14. An instruction that worries you We take ownership Courage Protect people first

For more scenarios on one value, see the courage, respect and empathy and public service pages. Our CVF explainer describes each competency.

The College of Policing's own example scenarios

The College's national sift candidate guidance includes two example scenarios "similar to" the real ones. Read them there: they are the only official examples. In brief, one is about a group of young people gathering outside a community centre, worrying residents but not committing an offence. The other is about a new colleague who has forgotten some paperwork and who other colleagues say often forgets.

The College does not publish ratings for its examples, so we do not give numbers for them either. What we can say is which of the rules on this page each one tests, so you know what to weigh when you rate them:

Official example one

The key fact is that no offence appears to be happening. Ask which actions find out more and engage with the young people as well as the residents, which simply record and wait and which use enforcement-style tactics on people who are not breaking the law. The rule: keep it proportionate and check facts before acting.

Official example two

The paperwork matters but is not urgent and the colleague is new. Ask which actions help him take responsibility and learn, which simply tell him off, which escalate early and which take the task off him altogether. The rule: support colleagues to own their work rather than doing it for them or punishing first.

Both official examples have the same feel as the fourteen above: no action is a trick, several are reasonable and the skill is judging how far each one would really help.

Check your ratings: a five-question test

Before you settle on a rating in any SJT example, run the action through these five questions:

  1. Does it deal with the real problem? Or does it only look tidy, polite or quick?
  2. Is anyone at risk? If so, does this action protect them now or leave them waiting?
  3. Is it the right size? Neither ignoring the issue nor jumping straight to the heaviest tool.
  4. Is it honest and fair? No favours, no misuse of information, no deciding on who seems nicer.
  5. Is it a sensible first step? Judged only on what the scenario tells you.

An action that passes all five is usually Very effective. One that fails the second or fourth question is usually at the bottom of the scale, however reasonable it sounds. Everything else sits in between and the questions it fails tell you roughly how far down.

How to make your own SJT practice examples

Once the rules click, everyday situations become practice. This works well on a commute or a walk and it builds the habit the real test rewards.

  1. Pick a situation from work, the news or your own life: a complaint, a mistake, a disagreement, someone in difficulty.
  2. Write four responses: one that deals with the whole problem, one that is reasonable but incomplete, one that is too heavy and one that avoids the issue.
  3. Vary the length. Make the best response short and give one of the poor ones a persuasive reason, so you practise judging actions rather than wording.
  4. Rate each on the five-point scale using the five questions above, then write one sentence on why.
  5. Swap with a friend if you can and compare ratings. Disagreements of two points or more are the useful ones to talk through.

Keep your examples work-based: the College frames the SJT around situations you may face in the role and the BSQ asks about your typical behaviour at work.

How the real SJT differs from these examples

  • No answers as you go. In the real SJT you do not see ratings after each scenario. Practise at least once with all feedback held to the end, as the free timed mock does.
  • More scenarios in one go. joiningthepolice.co.uk describes 15 scenarios. Expect to need concentration for 30 to 45 minutes.
  • A combined result. Your SJT score is combined with the BSQ, compared with other applicants and shown as a percentile. You are told whether you met the national standard; the pass mark is not published. See how the sift is scored.
  • Official practice questions first. The platform offers unscored practice questions before the exercises. You can skip them, but you cannot go back to them later.
  • Untimed, within a window. You have seven days from the invitation. The College's adjustments guide says you can pause and come back up to ten times in that window.

Where to practise next

Free, no sign-up Police SJT practice test 15 scenarios scored automatically, the reasoning for every rating and one free timed mock. Free download SJT practice questions PDF Printable scenarios with a rating grid and model answers. Guide How to pass the National Sift Common mistakes with fixes, a two-week plan and a checklist for the day. The other half BSQ examples explained The seven-point scale, the ranking screens and example statements.

The optional Sift Prep Pass (£19.99, 90 days, one payment) adds the full scenario bank, unlimited timed mocks and drills by CVF value. It is the same kind of original material as these examples, not College questions and no product can promise you will meet the national standard.

Sift and recruitment alerts

Know when the sift or the application windows change

Forces open and close recruitment windows without much notice, and the national sift can change. Leave your email and we will tell you when forces open applications and when the sift or the entry rules change. Occasional emails, written by hand. Unsubscribe any time.

Prefer LinkedIn? Subscribe to the Police Pay newsletter there (opens LinkedIn in a new tab; LinkedIn may ask you to sign in)

Sent by a person when there is news, not on a schedule. Unsubscribe any time. See our privacy policy.

Myths about SJT example questions

"Sites sell the real questions." The College does not publish its live questions or answer key. Anything sold as "real" or "actual" questions is not.

"Each scenario has one best and one worst answer." You rate all four actions independently and can use the same rating more than once.

"The longest, most detailed answer is the best." Judge what an action does. On this page length does not predict the rating.

"The toughest response is what policing wants." The scale rewards what helps resolve the situation. Heavy-handed first steps usually score in the middle at best.

"You need to know the law." The College says no prior policing knowledge is required.

"Memorising answers is the way to pass." The live scenarios will be different. Learn the reasoning, not the ratings.

What we could not verify

  • The College's answer key and how it marks each rating. Not published.
  • Whether option length follows any pattern in the real SJT. We have no evidence either way.
  • The exact number of SJT scenarios. The College gives no count; joiningthepolice.co.uk says 15.
  • How long the SJT really takes. The College's sift guidance says about 45 minutes, its adjustments guide about 20 and joiningthepolice.co.uk about 30. All agree it is untimed.
  • The weighting between the SJT and the BSQ in the combined score. Not published.
Quick answers

Frequently Asked Questions

What does a police SJT question look like?

You read a short scenario of the kind a new constable might face, then four possible actions. You rate each action on the College of Policing's five-point scale: Counterproductive, Ineffective, Slightly effective, Effective or Very effective. You rate every action on its own, the same rating can be used more than once and you do not have to use the whole scale.

Are these the real National Sift questions?

No. The College of Policing does not publish its live questions or its answer key. These fourteen scenarios are original PolicePay examples written in the same format. The ratings are our reasoned judgement against the Competency and Values Framework, not official answers.

How many questions are in the police SJT?

The College's candidate guidance does not give a number. The national recruitment site, joiningthepolice.co.uk, describes 15 scenarios. Each scenario has four actions to rate, so on that description you make 60 ratings in all.

Is there one right answer to each SJT question?

Not in the multiple-choice sense. You rate all four actions, so each scenario has four answers. Two actions can deserve the same rating and some scenarios have no Very effective action at all. What matters is how close each of your ratings is to the effectiveness of that action as a first response.

Is the longest answer usually the best in an SJT?

No and assuming so is a trap. On this page the longest action is the best-rated one in only 5 of 14 examples and is rated Ineffective or Counterproductive in 6. Long options often wrap a poor action in plausible reasons. Judge what the action does, not how much it says.

How are SJT example answers marked?

The College says the National Sift is scored automatically and your SJT and BSQ scores are combined into one score shown as a percentile. It does not say how individual ratings are marked. In our practice, an exact match scores 100%, one point out 67%, two points out 33% and three or more 0%, because being close is better than being far off.

What competencies do the police SJT examples test?

The College says the SJT assesses six CVF competencies: we analyse critically, we are innovative and open-minded, we take ownership, we are emotionally aware, we are collaborative and we support and inspire. The three values (courage, respect and empathy, public service) run through good answers too and the BSQ assesses them directly.

Do I need police knowledge to answer SJT examples?

No. The College says no prior policing knowledge is required and you should base your answers only on the information in the scenario. Good judgement, fairness and honesty matter more than knowing procedure.

How long should I spend on each SJT example?

The real SJT is untimed. The College's candidate guidance says about 45 minutes in total; joiningthepolice.co.uk says about 30 minutes for 15 scenarios, which is about two minutes each. Take your time on these examples and read the reasoning.

Should every scenario have a Very effective answer?

No. The College says you do not have to use the full range of the scale. Example 12 on this page has no Very effective action: two actions are Effective because each deals with only part of the problem.

Where can I find more SJT practice questions with answers?

PolicePay's free SJT practice test has 15 more original scenarios with the reasoning for every rating and one free timed mock. There are also free scenarios for each CVF value and a free practice PDF. The optional Sift Prep Pass (£19.99, 90 days) adds the full bank.

Why is 'do nothing' usually rated low in SJT examples?

Because the scale asks how far an action helps resolve the situation. Doing nothing rarely helps and where someone may be at risk it can make things worse. Waiting can still be sensible if the scenario gives a good reason, so read each one carefully.

Evidence

Sources and how we checked them

Every factual claim on this page was written from the sources below, read on 22 October 2026. Rules and figures change, so check the source for the date you are reading this. Where we could not confirm something from an official or independent source, the page says so rather than guessing. Spotted something out of date? See our corrections policy.

  1. College of Policing: National sift candidate guidance (updated 1 June 2026) : what the SJT assesses; the five-point scale and its definitions; rate each action independently; same rating allowed; full range not required; first response; information in the scenario only; the six competencies; the two official example scenarios; untimed, about 45 minutes (accessed 22 October 2026)
  2. joiningthepolice.co.uk: What does the sift involve? : 15 scenarios, about 30 minutes, untimed (accessed 22 October 2026)
  3. College of Policing: Reasonable adjustments guide for online assessments candidates (updated 25 August 2026) : sift untimed; about 20 minutes for the SJT and 30 for the BSQ in this guide; pause up to ten times in the seven-day window (accessed 22 October 2026)
  4. College of Policing: Competency and Values Framework : the values and competencies the model ratings are written against (accessed 22 October 2026)
Related Guides

On this topic elsewhere

Free SJT practice test → 15 more scenarios, scored, with a free timed mock. How to pass the sift → Mistakes with fixes and a two-week plan. SJT practice PDF → Printable scenarios with a rating grid. The National Sift explained → Both exercises from official sources. The CVF explained → The framework behind every rating. The BSQ explained → The other half of the sift.
The National Sift

More in this guide series

Start here National Sift hub The SJT and BSQ explained from official sources: timings, scoring, who sits it and free practice. Free practice Free SJT practice test Original scenarios on the official five-point scale, with the reasoning and a free timed mock. Preparation How to pass the sift What the sift rewards, how hard it is, a prep plan and a checklist for the day. Scoring Pass mark and pass rate How the score works, why there is no published pass mark and what force figures show. BSQ The BSQ explained The seven-point scale, the ranking screens, what it measures and example statements. Free practice Free BSQ practice Original statements on the official scale, with ranking screens and a profile view. Free download SJT practice PDF Free printable scenarios with a rating grid and model answers. Results Results and feedback How long results take, what the percentile means and what to do next. Resits Failed the sift When you can resit, why people miss and a plan for next time. Scenarios Courage scenarios Free scenarios built around the CVF value of courage. Scenarios Respect and empathy scenarios Free scenarios built around respect and empathy. Scenarios Public service scenarios Free scenarios built around public service. On the day Access code and tech problems The access code fix, devices and who to contact. On the day Reasonable adjustments What you can use without asking and what to arrange with your force. Other roles Specials and the sift The national standard for special constable recruitment. Other roles PCSOs and the sift What PCSO applicants sit and how it differs.
Also on PolicePay

Free tools for applicants

Tool OAC readiness check Check how ready you are for the online assessment centre. Tool Mock interview Practise police interview questions with feedback. Tool Force finder Compare forces on pay, allowances and region. Tool Timeline planner Plan the stages from application to start date. Tool Vetting checker See where you are in the vetting process.

Disclaimer

PolicePay.co.uk is an independent guide. It is not affiliated with the College of Policing, the Home Office or any police force and it does not recruit, vet or assess applicants. Recruitment standards, assessment formats and vetting decisions are set by the College of Policing and each force and change from time to time: check the force you are applying to before relying on anything here. Details apply to England and Wales unless stated. Details are as checked on 22 October 2026.