Technical Competency
Trauma Awareness and Understanding
Assessing
How to assess or score: for non-subject matter experts
Whatever your question (if you choose or adapt a question from the Anchoring section or create your own), the Deep Dive table can help you identify positive and negative aspects – green or reg flags in a candidate’s answers.
For a simple scoring or assessment scheme, you can simply assign +1 to positive or green flag content and -1 to red flag answers.
For a scoring system of say 0-3 for each question, we would recommend the following matrix to be used in combination with the Deep Dive table for each value or competency. We recommend printing copies of the Deep Dive tables, as well as the full Murad Code, so that these can be easily consulted when assessing a candidate.
| Scoring / grading | Values |
|---|---|
| 0 | Misaligned (harmful, unsafe, or dismissive answers) with red flags - No elements demonstrated or more than 1 limiting behaviors exhibited. |
| 1 | Weak alignment (superficial, misses core principles) with one or two red flags- only 1 or 2 elements demonstrated, with more than 1 limited behaviour also shown. |
| 2 | Partial alignment (mentions some key elements but incomplete) with 1 or less red flags - A good number of elements demonstrated but also 1 red flag or concern raised. |
| 3 | Strong alignment (clear survivor-centred reasoning, practical actions, responsibility) with no red flag - Multiple elements demonstrated and no limiting behaviours or red flags indicated. |
Below, there is also an assessment guide to the sample questions provided in the Anchoring section.
Sample written test examples
Hypothetical (can be based on relevant context and job requirements)
1. You’ve received information and feedback from survivors that interviews being conducted in IDP camps under your project are causing distress, bringing to the surface nightmares and flashbacks, and significantly escalating PTSD symptoms. How would you respond and what changes would you make?
Main elements expected in answer: recognises as safeguarding issue and takes reports seriously; conducts a project review and team reflection session(s) to try to understand better where process and systems, and practice needs improvement, consider refresher training (scenario-based around distress detection and escalation protocols) as well as interview closing techniques; strengthen protocol and practice (as well as time spent) on interview closing and discussion of expectations, support and needs over coming days; includes grounding techniques for interviewers and builds these techniques in at end of interviews with survivors; consider observation measures (with consent); strengthen support and feedback loop post interview, including through trusted community-based organisations/referral organisations or survivor networks; consider strengthening and reviewing accessibility to case management service and counselling support.
Red flags: does not consider it their responsibility after interviews, dismisses as an inevitable consequence of retelling traumatic events, does not suggest any inquiry or improvements.
2. A partner organisation resists adopting trauma-informed practices, saying they already “treat everyone equally and with empathy.” How would you influence them to align with trauma-informed principles?
Main elements expected in answer: differentiates between empathy and trauma-informed; shares evidence, survivor voices, best practice and own learning journey/experience to show results/benefits; offers collaborative workshops to explore current practice and benefits of additional trauma-informed elements missing from systems and practice; respects and ensures community-based, contextual and gender dimensions to changes; offers mentoring and support.
Red flags: dictates requirements without contextualisation or respect for contextual knowledge, cannot distinguish between empathy and trauma-informed, can’t explain why trauma-informed approaches are important.
Technical:
1. What biases or assumptions about trauma do you think frontline professionals need to be especially aware of when working with survivors?
Main elements expected in answer: mentions at least 3 or 4 biases and assumptions (e.g. trauma = crying, assumption that all traumatised people present as very emotional, crying and distressed v. individualise manifestations including flat affects, etc.; assumption that all traumatised people should remember what happened to them in detail and in chronological details v. impact of trauma on storing and recalling memories; assumption that PTSD makes witnesses unreliable OR that those seeking mental health support do not make good witnesses; traumatised people cannot be trusted to make safe decisions; all traumatised people need to be automatically given all possible support and protection; that men are less emotional or traumatised than women (because they don’t show it). A good answer connects each of these to implications for trauma-informed responses at the project level and individual interaction level.
Red flags: isn’t aware of any, speaks about trauma in way that shows acceptance of these myths and misassumptions, cannot link to implications in the field or project design or decision-making.
2. How does vicarious trauma among personnel impact delivery, and what systemic actions would you take to address it (as a manager or as a practitioner)?
Main elements expected in answer: safety of delivery - someone who is burned out or has vicarious trauma is unlikely to be ready to work with survivors in positive way without doing harm [MC 9.1] – inclusion of examples a positive here; effectiveness of delivery – as with safety, but also in terms of long term sickness and reduced capacity; reputational risks from both of these from a safeguarding perspective. Systemic actions include: protocols, dosage measures, frontline supervision and check-ins, debriefs and buddy systems, training to recognise signs and symptoms, insistence on work-life balance and taking holidays/vacation – rotational leave, provision of counselling and mental health support – modelled by leadership, confidentiality ensured, prompted by job description/performance review requirements to seek help and prioritise well-being.
Red flags: does not recognise impact on survivor interactions, focuses only on staff depletion and timelines, cannot suggest actions for individual and organisational prevention and response.
3. Application Exercise: Share a copy of Principle 10.2 OR 7.10 of the Murad Code and ask the candidate to reflect on how they would operationalise it in a practical situation (e.g. team training, field protocols, handling a breach).
Main elements expected in answer: expect concrete measures which would include protocols, scenario-based training and observation/modelling (with green lighting once competency demonstrated), mentoring and monitoring, continued professional development and support as needed. Self-care systems include hot debriefs, buddy systems, frontline supervision and check-ins, workload/exposure dosage, accessible and confidential pathways to counselling and support, modelling by leadership/mentors.
Red flags: minimises importance, fails to mention more than 1 actionable step, seems unfamiliar with the principle.
Sample interview questions:
1. Give me an example of when you changed or adapted a process or interaction to prevent someone from feeling re-traumatised or overwhelmed.
Main elements expected in answer: detailed clear example with description of situation, risk identification and adjustment; demonstrates empathy and knowledge of trauma; is reflective on learning.
Red flags: vague or irrelevant example, failure to recognise risk or understand trauma until too late, no clear source adjustment or learning.
2. Describe a time when you noticed that trauma was affecting someone’s behaviour or communication. How did you respond and what did you do to adapt your approach?
Main elements expected in answer: able to describe/recognise signs of trauma and distress; expresses concern/empathy safeguarding instincts; participatory – survivor control/empowerment approach to understanding needs including pausing, taking a break, refocusing on different topic, support, referrals, etc.
Red flags: can’t give example or doesn’t seem to be able to describe signs of trauma or distress; doesn’t respond or doesn’t give survivor/other person control over that they need and what happens next; shows signs of embarrassment or avoidance; shuts everything down because of own discomfort with it.
3. Describe a situation where you noticed a colleague or survivor showing signs of distress/ early signs of burnout, vicarious trauma, or compassion fatigue in yourself or others. How did you respond? What action did you take?
Main elements expected in answer: able to describe/recognise signs of vicarious trauma, burn out and compassion fatigue; expresses concern/empathy safeguarding instincts; describes steps to support individual which are participatory and collaborative, able to identify different avenues of support potentially available, respects confidentiality and autonomy (except if lifesaving intervention required).
Red flags: doesn’t describe signs of vicarious trauma, intervenes very late or describes long period of non-response, no real supportive actions, no reflection or learning.