Allied Health & Imaging · Independent exam preparation
Certified Research Administrator® Examination Study Guide
Practise funding fit, proposal review, sponsor terms, compliance, budgeting and award oversight through 60 CRA concepts, worked cases and original practice questions.
By CertMedbry · Updated 31 October 2026
Learn to match projects with funding opportunities, build defensible budgets, recognize compliance triggers, interpret award conditions and resolve financial discrepancies. This guide follows RACC's Certified Research Administrator® examination across the sponsored-project lifecycle. Its 60 selected concepts provide a structured foundation; the official Body of Knowledge remains the full examination scope. The accompanying questions and flashcards are independently authored learning materials.
Try 20 free practice questionsWhat is the exam format?
Check the question types, timing and outline before planning your revision.
How many questions are included, and which count toward the score?
The 2026 handbook specifies a maximum of 200 multiple-choice objective questions: 175 operational questions count toward the score, while 25 randomly distributed pilot questions do not. Candidates should answer every question without trying to identify pilot items.
Certification Examination for Research Administrators — Candidate Handbook 2026
How long is the examination?
Testing time is 3.5 hours. The handbook states that no breaks are scheduled and that the examination timer continues during permitted breaks.
Certification Examination for Research Administrators — Candidate Handbook 2026
How is the examination delivered, and is it adaptive?
The 2026 handbook describes computer-based testing at Prometric testing facilities during established testing windows. It describes multiple-choice objective questions but does not identify computer-adaptive delivery. These 20 practice questions are independent single-best-answer drills.
Certification Examination for Research Administrators — Candidate Handbook 2026
Which blueprint and domain weights apply?
The 2026 handbook identifies the CRA Body of Knowledge current as of August 1, 2021. Approximate weights are Collection and Dissemination of Information 44%, Legal Requirements and Sponsor Interface 20%, Financial Management 21%, and General Management 15%. This guide allocates concepts 26/12/13/9 and each practice set 9/4/4/3. The standalone outline supplies scope; the handbook supplies weights.
Certification Examination for Research Administrators — Candidate Handbook 2026 · CRA Examination Body of Knowledge — Effective 08/01/2021
What does the reported passing score mean?
The 2026 handbook reports a scale of 200–800 with a passing point of 500. This is a scaled score, not a percentage correct. RACC uses criterion-referenced standard setting and equating across examination forms. Performance on this short practice test does not predict an official result.
Certification Examination for Research Administrators — Candidate Handbook 2026
How does CRA differ from CPRA and CFRA?
CRA covers research and sponsored-programs administration broadly. RACC separately awards Certified Pre-Award Research Administrator and Certified Financial Research Administrator credentials after their corresponding examinations. They are separate credential choices rather than alternate names or successive levels of the CRA examination.
RACC — Introduction · CRA Examination Body of Knowledge — Effective 08/01/2021
What eligibility routes and application fee does the 2026 handbook state?
The handbook lists a bachelor's or advanced degree plus three years of relevant professional experience; an associate degree plus five years; or no degree plus six years. It lists an application fee of US $395. Review the current handbook for documentation, deadlines, accommodations and any updates before applying.
Certification Examination for Research Administrators — Candidate Handbook 2026 · RACC — Candidate Handbook for Certified Research Administrators
How should candidates handle changing sponsor policies?
The outline establishes examination scope rather than a universal rulebook for every sponsor. Apply the governing regulations, current sponsor policy, award terms and institutional procedures to the stated situation. NIH examples here include the March 2026 Grants Policy Statement and the specific 2026 BESH implementation dates; those changes do not automatically rewrite existing awards.
NIH Grants Policy Statement · NIH — NOT-OD-26-032: Basic Experimental Studies in Humans (BESH) Will No Longer Be Considered Clinical Trials by the NIH · NIH — NOT-OD-26-067: Implementation of Changes for Basic Experimental Studies with Humans
RACC's CRA recognizes professional knowledge in research and sponsored-programs administration. CPRA and CFRA are separate credentials with their own examinations. This guide addresses CRA; U.S. federal and NIH examples retain their stated sponsor and jurisdictional context.
Outline used: 2026 Candidate Handbook, linked by RACC and consulted on 2026-10-13; CRA Examination Body of Knowledge effective 2021-08-01 and identified as current in the 2026 handbook. The workbook label maps directly to RACC's CRA credential and examination. The assigned slug and workbook category are preserved; the examination concerns research and sponsored-programs administration.
60 key concepts: understand, apply and avoid the traps
Work through the questions by exam domain. Explain the answer in your own words, try the example, then check the common pitfall.
Collection and Dissemination of Information44%
1.How do you judge whether a funding opportunity fits a project?
Funding fit combines scientific alignment with applicant eligibility, permitted activities, available support and submission conditions. A keyword match alone cannot establish suitability. Compare the investigator's objectives and project stage with the opportunity's stated purpose, then examine organizational eligibility, investigator restrictions, allowable costs and required partnerships. A strong match supports the actual work without forcing an artificial redesign or concealing an eligibility barrier. Record the reason for recommending or rejecting each opportunity.
Apply it
A foundation supports community implementation projects, while an investigator proposes laboratory method development. Prepare a short comparison of objectives, eligible activities and institutional qualifications before recommending an opportunity that actually supports the proposed development stage.
Common pitfall: A large award ceiling can distract from a fundamental scope mismatch. Strong scientific merit does not overcome an explicit applicant or activity restriction.
2.How should a limited-submission competition be managed?
A limited-submission opportunity restricts how many applications an institution may submit. The administrative task is to select institutional nominees before the sponsor deadline through a communicated internal process. Announce eligibility, selection criteria, required materials and an internal deadline early enough for review and proposal development. Track the institutional submission limit centrally. The decisive issue is the sponsor's organizational restriction, which cannot be solved by allowing departments to submit independently.
Apply it
A sponsor allows one university application, and three departments express interest. Announce an internal competition, arrange review under stated criteria and notify the selected team early enough to complete institutional routing before the sponsor deadline.
Common pitfall: Treating each department as a separate eligible applicant can breach an institution-wide limit. An investigator's readiness does not establish institutional authorization to submit.
3.What makes an internal seed-funding program administratively useful?
Internal funding can support preliminary work, collaboration or preparation for external sponsorship. Useful administration connects the program's purpose to eligibility, review criteria, permitted spending and expected outcomes. Define what recipients must deliver and how progress will be evaluated before awards begin. Distinguish a project-development investment from an unrestricted allocation. Consistent records allow the institution to assess whether supported activities produced the intended research capacity, partnerships, proposals or other stated results.
Apply it
An institution offers seed awards to develop interdisciplinary proposals. Require a collaboration plan and a later proposal-development report, then assess outcomes against that purpose rather than judging every recipient solely by immediate external funding.
Common pitfall: Counting only dollars distributed measures activity rather than program effectiveness. Outcome measures should reflect the seed program's stated purpose and realistic development timeline.
4.How do collaborator roles become a workable project plan?
A collaboration becomes administratively workable when scientific responsibilities, institutional responsibilities and resource needs are explicit. Identify who performs each activity, what deliverables depend on another participant and which institution controls the necessary resources. Confirm that the proposed arrangement matches the scope and budget. Early clarification prevents two institutions from assuming the other will supply personnel, approvals or data. A collaborator's enthusiasm is useful, but it does not replace an agreed operational contribution.
Apply it
Two laboratories propose joint sample analysis. Ask them to identify sample preparation, testing, data transfer and interpretation responsibilities, then align each institution's budget and deliverables with the work it will actually perform during the project.
Common pitfall: A support letter can express interest without committing resources. Do not infer a funded scope, approved budget or institutional commitment from encouraging language alone.
5.When is contact with a sponsor program officer most useful?
Program-officer contact is useful when a focused scientific or programmatic question remains after reading the opportunity. Prepare a concise project description and identify the specific uncertainty, such as alignment with program objectives. Keep scientific guidance distinct from formal administrative approval and award authority. Record substantive guidance and compare it with the published requirements. An encouraging discussion can improve proposal targeting, but it does not establish an exception to eligibility, budget or submission rules.
Apply it
An investigator's project spans two program areas. Help prepare a brief aims summary and a question about program fit, then preserve the response while continuing to satisfy the written opportunity and institutional submission requirements.
Common pitfall: Informal encouragement is not a funding commitment or permission to disregard instructions. Resolve administrative exceptions through the sponsor's appropriate authorized process before relying on them.
6.How can successful proposals guide development without becoming templates?
A successful proposal can illustrate organization, explanatory depth and alignment between aims, methods and resources. Its value lies in understanding those relationships rather than copying wording or assuming every feature caused success. Obtain permission where appropriate and protect confidential or proprietary content. Compare the example with the current opportunity because forms, review criteria and policies may change. Use examples to improve reasoning and presentation while developing an original, accurate account of the proposed work.
Apply it
A department shares an older funded proposal with permission. Ask the new team to examine how activities support the aims, then rebuild its own narrative and budget using current instructions and its actual research plan.
Common pitfall: An old funded application can contain obsolete requirements or project-specific assumptions. Prior success does not make its budget structure or narrative universally appropriate.
7.How do application instructions become a reliable review matrix?
A review matrix converts sponsor instructions into verifiable requirements with an owner, due date and evidence of completion. Separate eligibility, required attachments, formatting, budget limits, certifications and submission steps. Resolve conflicts using the instructions applicable to that opportunity rather than assumptions from another program. A useful matrix supports substantive review: an attached document must contain the required information, not merely exist. Update the matrix when the sponsor issues a clarification or amendment.
Apply it
A call requires a data plan, collaborator documents and a capped narrative. Assign each component an owner and internal due date, then review content and formatting against the current instructions before releasing the application for submission.
Common pitfall: Checking only that attachments are present can miss an ineligible project or incomplete response. Completeness and compliance require review of the actual contents.
8.Which eligibility checks belong before proposal development proceeds?
Eligibility review considers both the applicant institution and the proposed project director or principal investigator. Sponsor rules may concern appointment, career stage, organizational type or other opportunity-specific conditions. Institutional policy may separately govern who may lead a sponsored project. Identify both sets of requirements early and obtain any permitted institutional exception through the proper authority. A qualified researcher can still be ineligible for a particular opportunity, and institutional approval cannot waive a sponsor restriction.
Apply it
A new investigator meets the sponsor's career-stage criteria but lacks the appointment required by university policy. Confirm whether an institutional exception is available before the team commits substantial proposal effort or represents eligibility in the application.
Common pitfall: Scientific expertise does not establish administrative eligibility. Separate a sponsor's mandatory conditions from institutional rules that may have an authorized exception process available.
9.How should proposal deadlines be planned backward?
Backward planning starts with the sponsor's actual deadline and reserves time for institutional review, collaborator materials, budget reconciliation, signatures and submission validation. Distinguish a submission attempt from confirmed receipt and acceptance into the sponsor's process. Assign dependencies so that a late scope change triggers review of affected budgets and documents. The schedule should protect substantive review time, not simply identify the last possible upload. Include responsibility for resolving errors before the external deadline.
Apply it
A proposal requires two subrecipient packages and institutional approval. Set earlier dates for scopes and budgets, leave time to reconcile discrepancies and assign one administrator to confirm sponsor-system receipt after the authorized submission is completed.
Common pitfall: Uploading at the deadline leaves no recovery time for validation failures. A local completion date is useful only if it accommodates dependent institutional actions.
10.What connects a statement of work to a defensible budget?
A defensible budget expresses the resources required to perform the stated work. Connect each major activity with personnel effort, supplies, services, travel or other necessary support, and explain the basis of estimates. Check that the narrative and budget describe the same methods, sites and project period. A discrepancy can reveal omitted work, duplicated resources or an unrealistic plan. Review scientific dependencies with the investigator rather than making unsupported administrative reductions to achieve a target total.
Apply it
A proposal promises monthly field visits at four sites but budgets travel for one site. Ask the investigator to reconcile the work plan and estimate before approving the budget, using the actual visit schedule as the basis.
Common pitfall: A mathematically correct budget can still be operationally impossible. Arithmetic review does not establish that the requested resources support all promised project activities.
11.How do person months translate effort into a proposal budget?
Person months express the time an individual commits to a project relative to the applicable appointment period. For a twelve-month appointment, 20% effort equals 2.4 calendar months: twelve multiplied by 0.20. Use the appropriate calendar, academic or summer appointment basis and avoid mixing them. Convert effort to salary using the relevant compensation base, then apply sponsor limitations separately. A salary limit changes the amount chargeable, not the amount of effort actually promised.
Apply it
A researcher with a twelve-month appointment will devote 15% effort throughout the year. Record 1.8 calendar months and calculate associated salary using the applicable institutional base, then assess any sponsor salary limitation separately from that commitment.
Common pitfall: Multiplying by twelve for every employee can misstate academic-year effort. Confirm the appointment basis before converting percentages, months or associated requested salary amounts.
12.How do salary caps affect reimbursable salary and application budget entries?
A sponsor salary cap limits the salary rate eligible for reimbursement; it does not reduce institutional base salary or committed effort. Calculate reimbursable salary using the applicable capped rate and project effort, but follow the sponsor's application instructions when entering requested salary. These amounts can differ. For NIH detailed budgets, the [R&R Budget instructions](https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/forms-i/general/g.300-r%26r-budget-form.htm) direct applicants to request salary support using actual institutional base salary without adjusting for the NIH salary cap. NIH makes applicable salary-limit adjustments at award.
Apply it
Assume a full year, institutional base salary of $240,000, 25% effort, and a hypothetical annual sponsor cap of $200,000. Salary attributable to the effort is $60,000; sponsor-reimbursable salary is $50,000, leaving a $10,000 institutional difference, excluding fringe benefits. Entering $50,000 as requested salary assumes that sponsor's submission instructions require a capped request. Under NIH detailed-budget instructions, request $60,000 using actual base salary; NIH applies the applicable cap at award.
Common pitfall: Do not treat the reimbursement ceiling as a universal instruction for application fields. Reducing reported effort to conceal the salary difference misrepresents the commitment. Identify institutional support for the difference and keep the effort, requested salary, and reimbursable salary distinguishable.
13.What makes a budget justification persuasive and reviewable?
A budget justification explains why requested resources are necessary and how estimates were developed. Identify the purpose, quantity, duration or calculation underlying significant costs and connect them with project activities. Reconcile the justification with the budget forms, including personnel effort and subrecipient totals. Specific explanation allows reviewers to assess reasonableness and project feasibility. A justification should clarify a supportable estimate rather than rationalize an amount selected simply to exhaust an available funding ceiling.
Apply it
A project requests $18,000 for laboratory supplies. Replace a generic statement with quantities, estimated unit costs and the experimental activities requiring them, then confirm that the resulting total agrees with the forms and proposed study schedule.
Common pitfall: Repeating a budget line's title adds little justification. Explain the relationship between the cost and the work, including the basis for the estimate.
14.Which subrecipient documents support a coherent proposal?
Subrecipient proposal materials should establish the collaborating institution's work, resources and authorized commitment. Obtain a scope, budget, justification and required institutional documentation consistent with the sponsor's instructions and institutional process. Reconcile dates, personnel effort and deliverables across the package. A prime applicant needs enough detail to evaluate whether the proposed subaward cost supports the assigned work. Agreement among documents matters more than collecting signatures on a package whose underlying assumptions remain inconsistent.
Apply it
A collaborator's scope promises three analyses, but its budget justification funds only two. Obtain a reconciled package and appropriate institutional confirmation before incorporating the subrecipient total and deliverables into the prime application for submission.
Common pitfall: A principal investigator's email does not necessarily represent the collaborator institution's authorized commitment. Resolve scope and budget inconsistencies before relying on a proposed subaward.
CRA Examination Body of Knowledge — Effective 08/01/2021 · NIH Grants Policy Statement — 15.2 Administrative and Other Requirements
15.How do the F&A rate and its base work together?
Facilities and administrative costs are calculated by applying the applicable rate to the applicable base. The rate alone is insufficient because the base may exclude particular categories or portions of costs. Confirm the governing rate agreement, activity, location, period and sponsor restrictions, then apply the corresponding exclusions. Keep direct-cost totals separate from the base used for F&A. A correct percentage applied to an incorrect base produces an incorrect request even when the multiplication is accurate.
Apply it
For a hypothetical award, the approved base includes $100,000 salary and $20,000 supplies but excludes $30,000 equipment. At a stated 40% rate, budget $48,000 F&A on the $120,000 eligible base, subject to the award's terms.
Common pitfall: Applying an institutional rate to every direct-cost dollar can overstate F&A. Verify the associated base and exclusions rather than memorizing only a percentage.
NIH Grants Policy Statement — 7.4 Reimbursement of Indirect Costs · CRA Examination Body of Knowledge — Effective 08/01/2021
16.Why does internal proposal routing require substantive approvals?
Internal routing documents institutional review of commitments made through a proposal. Appropriate reviewers assess matters such as personnel participation, space, cost sharing, compliance and budget assumptions within their authority. The routing record should identify what version was approved and whether later changes require renewed review. Approval is meaningful only when reviewers receive accurate information. Routing cannot be reduced to collecting signatures after the institution has already made commitments through an external submission.
Apply it
After department approval, an investigator adds mandatory institutional cost sharing. Return the changed commitment to the authorized reviewers before submission and preserve the approved version so the institution can identify exactly what it agreed to support.
Common pitfall: Approval of an earlier budget does not automatically cover a material new obligation. Version changes can invalidate the assumptions on which reviewers originally agreed.
17.What distinguishes an authorized submission from a completed draft?
A completed proposal becomes an institutional submission through the authorized process, including necessary approvals and action by a person with appropriate submission authority. Technical access to an electronic system does not by itself establish institutional authority. After submission, verify the sponsor's acknowledgment and resolve errors or omissions within applicable deadlines. Preserve the final submitted version and confirmation. These controls distinguish an internally prepared package from a proposal actually received through the sponsor's required process.
Apply it
An investigator finishes all attachments and asks a colleague with system access to submit immediately. Confirm institutional approvals and authorized submission responsibility, then verify the sponsor acknowledgment rather than treating the completed files as proof of successful submission.
Common pitfall: A portal login can provide capability without delegated authority. Similarly, an upload confirmation may not establish that all sponsor validation requirements have been satisfied.
18.How should proposal and award records remain traceable?
Traceable records connect the approved proposal, submitted application, sponsor correspondence, award document and financial account. Use consistent identifiers and retain the versions that support decisions and institutional commitments. Distinguish requested funding from awarded funding and amendments from replacement documents. Reliable records allow administrators to reconstruct why an account was established or a commitment accepted. Data entry should reflect the source document accurately rather than silently carrying proposal assumptions into an award with different terms.
Apply it
A sponsor awards less than requested and changes the project period. Enter the awarded amount and dates from the award document, link the revised budget and preserve the submitted proposal separately for comparison and institutional reporting.
Common pitfall: Copying proposal data into an award record without reconciliation can create false spending authority. Requested funding and sponsor-authorized funding serve different administrative purposes.
19.How is potential human-subjects research identified?
Under the HHS framework, research is a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge. First apply that definition; then separately determine whether the research involves human subjects. Human subjects are living individuals about whom investigators obtain information or biospecimens through intervention or interaction and use, study or analyze them, or obtain, use, study, analyze or generate identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens. Exemption is a subsequent determination for research involving human subjects. These classification steps are explained in [OHRP's classification lesson](https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/education-and-outreach/online-education/human-research-protection-training/lesson-2-what-is-human-subjects-research/index.html).
Apply it
An office counts appointment delays solely to adjust its current staffing, without designing an investigation to contribute to generalizable knowledge. That described operational activity is nonresearch. By comparison, systematic interviews designed to develop generalizable findings about access barriers meet the research threshold. If investigators interview living participants and analyze their responses, the human-subject threshold is also met. Next assess whether the project satisfies a specific exemption category through the institution's designated determination process before recruitment.
Common pitfall: Neither collecting information systematically nor planning publication alone settles the research classification; the investigation's design and purpose matter. Likewise, low risk does not automatically establish exemption. Keep the research, human-subject and exemption determinations separate and document the facts supporting each decision.
HHS OHRP — 45 CFR 46 FAQs · NIH Grants Policy Statement — 1.2 Definition of Terms
20.How did NIH's 2026 BESH policy change classification?
NIH excludes basic experimental studies with humans from its clinical-trial classification when they seek fundamental understanding without immediate clinical applications. The 2026 interpretation concerns whether outcomes potentially directly advance health. Implementation applies to competing grant applications with due dates on or after May 25, 2026, and contract solicitations issued on or after that date. Existing funded studies continue under their established terms. Exclusion from clinical-trial classification does not remove applicable human-subject protections or other obligations.
Apply it
A team prepares a competing application due in June 2026 for a human experiment focused solely on fundamental processes. Evaluate BESH eligibility under the new interpretation while separately documenting human-subject protections and other applicable proposal requirements.
Common pitfall: The change is not a blanket exemption for research involving people. Nor does it automatically remove requirements from studies already funded under earlier terms.
NIH — NOT-OD-26-032: Basic Experimental Studies in Humans (BESH) Will No Longer Be Considered Clinical Trials by the NIH · NIH — NOT-OD-26-067: Implementation of Changes for Basic Experimental Studies with Humans
21.How should award deliverables be monitored?
Deliverable monitoring translates award obligations into assigned actions with due dates and evidence of completion. Include scientific reports, financial reports and other required outputs without assuming that one report satisfies every obligation. Compare progress with milestones and investigate emerging delays while corrective options remain available. Maintain communication between investigators and administrative offices because scientific and financial information often develop separately. Submission records should show what was delivered, when and whether the sponsor requested further action.
Apply it
A milestone report is due before the annual financial report, but the team tracks only the latter. Add the scientific deliverable to a shared calendar, assign an owner and document sponsor receipt and any follow-up requests.
Common pitfall: A balanced account does not prove scientific compliance. Timely spending reports cannot substitute for missing technical deliverables, approvals or other award-specific reporting obligations.
CRA Examination Body of Knowledge — Effective 08/01/2021 · NIH Grants Policy Statement — 8.3 Management Systems and Procedures
22.What should be checked before effort information is certified?
Compensation support must reasonably reflect work actually performed, rather than merely repeat a proposal estimate. Before certification, compare the reported distribution with available payroll information and the individual's actual activities, investigating material differences through the institution's process. Consider the relevant appointment and total activity context. Budget estimates can support initial allocations, but they require review and adjustment when actual work differs. Certification should confirm supportable information rather than convert an unreconciled estimate into presumed fact.
Apply it
An employee was budgeted at 30% effort but performed approximately 20% project work during the reporting period. Resolve the discrepancy using appropriate activity evidence and payroll adjustments before certification, rather than approving the original budget percentage unchanged.
Common pitfall: An award's available balance does not justify a salary charge. Effort certification concerns work performed, even when charging the budgeted amount would be convenient.
NIH Grants Policy Statement — 7.9 Allowability of Costs/Activities
23.Why must suspension and debarment status be checked?
Suspension and debarment restrict participation in covered transactions under applicable rules. Screening supports the institution's responsibility to avoid entering a prohibited relationship, rather than serving as a judgment of scientific quality. Identify the applicable transaction and parties, review authoritative exclusion information and document the result under institutional procedures. Potential matches require identity resolution because similar names can refer to different entities. Sponsor and transaction requirements determine the appropriate timing and consequences of a confirmed exclusion.
Apply it
Before issuing a covered subaward, an administrator finds a similar organizational name in exclusion information. Confirm the entity's identity and applicable restriction before proceeding, preserving the screening result and resolution in the subaward record for institutional review.
Common pitfall: Prior collaboration does not establish present eligibility. Conversely, a name resemblance alone is insufficient to conclude that the proposed collaborator is the excluded entity.
NIH Grants Policy Statement — 1.2 Definition of Terms · CRA Examination Body of Knowledge — Effective 08/01/2021
24.What should a written subaward agreement accomplish?
A written consortium or subaward agreement translates the prime award and collaborating scope into enforceable responsibilities. It should align the work, budget, period, reporting, payment and applicable compliance obligations while addressing the relationship's specific risks. The recipient remains responsible for appropriate oversight rather than transferring all accountability with the funds. Use clear deliverables and communication routes so scientific and administrative concerns can be resolved. A purchase-style invoice arrangement alone may not capture substantive collaborative responsibilities.
Apply it
A university subawards participant recruitment to another institution. Define recruitment deliverables, reporting, payment support and applicable human-subject obligations in the written agreement, then align monitoring with both performance and financial information throughout the approved project period.
Common pitfall: Copying every prime-award sentence without assessing applicability can create confusion. Omitting relevant obligations because the collaborator is experienced leaves the recipient's oversight responsibility unresolved.
NIH Grants Policy Statement — 15.2 Administrative and Other Requirements
25.When is an advance account a controlled institutional decision?
An advance account permits institutional tracking of authorized activity before a final award account is available. It does not create sponsor reimbursement authority or make otherwise unallowable costs allowable. Evaluate the expected award, permitted start date, unresolved conditions, institutional approval and the funding source that will cover costs if reimbursement fails. Limit the authorization by amount, period and purpose. The key distinction is between an institution accepting financial risk and a sponsor authorizing reimbursement.
Apply it
A team needs supplies while award processing continues. Under a hypothetical institutional policy, approve a capped advance account only after documenting the permitted work, approval authority and departmental source responsible if the anticipated sponsor does not reimburse those expenses.
Common pitfall: An expected award is not guaranteed reimbursement. An advance account should not bypass required research approvals, sponsor restrictions or a documented institutional risk decision.
CRA Examination Body of Knowledge — Effective 08/01/2021 · NIH Grants Policy Statement — 7.2 The Cost Principles
26.How does award closeout differ from simply stopping spending?
Closeout establishes that required work, administrative actions and final reporting are complete. It includes reconciling expenditures, resolving outstanding commitments, obtaining subrecipient reports and documenting final submissions. NIH example: the final Federal Financial Report (FFR), Final Research Performance Progress Report (Final RPPR), and Final Invention Statement and Certification are ordinarily due within 120 calendar days after the project period ends. Subrecipients must submit their required final reports to the recipient no later than 90 calendar days after their subaward period of performance ends, or an earlier agreed date. These earlier submissions allow the recipient to reconcile and incorporate subrecipient information before its own deadline.
Apply it
For an NIH project whose subawards end with the recipient's project period, establish subrecipient reporting dates no later than day 90. Assign finance staff to reconcile final invoices and expenditures, the investigator to prepare final scientific information, and appropriate institutional staff to coordinate invention reporting. Use the remaining interval before day 120 to resolve discrepancies and submit the recipient's final reports.
Common pitfall: A zero balance or completed experiment does not establish that closeout is complete. Missing reports and unresolved subrecipient charges still require action. Closeout also does not eliminate record retention, audit access, property accountability or the obligation to repay subsequently disallowed costs.
NIH Grants Policy Statement — 8.6 Closeout · Code of Federal Regulations
Legal Requirements and Sponsor Interface20%
27.What does an IRB evaluate beyond a signed consent form?
IRB review addresses whether covered human-subjects research satisfies applicable protections, including risk minimization, a reasonable risk-benefit relationship, equitable selection, informed consent and safeguards for privacy and confidentiality. A signed consent document is one component rather than a substitute for protocol review. Administrators support the process by ensuring that proposed activities, personnel and records correspond to the approved arrangement. Changes and continuing obligations must follow the applicable review pathway rather than being assumed acceptable after initial approval.
Apply it
An approved survey team wants to add sensitive questions and a new recruitment population. Identify the proposed changes for appropriate IRB assessment before implementation, even though participants would still sign the study's existing consent document during recruitment.
Common pitfall: Consent cannot authorize investigators to disregard an approved protocol. A signature also does not establish that risks, recruitment or confidentiality protections have been adequately reviewed.
28.How do NIH animal-welfare responsibilities differ for domestic and foreign recipients?
NIH animal-welfare requirements include applicable Animal Welfare Assurances and appropriate consortium oversight. A domestic recipient remains responsible for IACUC review and approval verification when animal activities occur at foreign sites. Foreign recipients themselves are not required to obtain IACUC approval under the cited NIH provision. Multiple IACUC approvals are unnecessary when the recipient and sites have Assurances and the applicable arrangement provides the required oversight. Identify the recipient's status and performance location before assigning review responsibilities.
Apply it
A U.S. university receives an NIH award with animal work performed by a foreign collaborator. Verify applicable Assurances and the domestic recipient's required IACUC review and approval arrangements rather than assuming the overseas location removes recipient oversight responsibilities.
Common pitfall: The rule for a foreign recipient cannot simply be applied to a domestic recipient's foreign performance site. Recipient identity and consortium responsibilities matter separately.
NIH Grants Policy Statement — 4.1.1 Animal Welfare Requirements
29.How should biosafety and radiation training follow the work?
Safety administration should connect the actual materials, procedures and personnel with the institution's applicable review and training requirements. The CRA outline includes biosafety and radiation meetings, reports and training verification, but does not establish a universal technical training schedule. Identify the proposed hazards and responsible institutional safety functions, then verify task-appropriate authorization and records. A general orientation may introduce policy without demonstrating preparation for a specialized activity. Changes in methods or materials can require renewed assessment.
Apply it
A laboratory plans to add a radioactive tracer to an existing biological study. Coordinate with the relevant safety offices to determine additional review, training and documentation before that activity starts, using the institution's requirements for the actual procedure.
Common pitfall: Training completed for one hazard does not establish qualification for another. The funding award and scientific approval do not replace applicable institutional safety review.
30.When can a domestic technology release be a deemed export?
Under the Export Administration Regulations, release of controlled technology or source code to a foreign person in the United States can constitute a deemed export. Physical shipment abroad is therefore not the only trigger for assessment. Determine the technology's classification, the proposed access and the person's relevant status before deciding whether authorization or an exclusion applies. The concept does not mean every international collaboration requires a license; the controlled information and release circumstances are decisive.
Apply it
A visiting researcher will receive access to potentially controlled technical instructions in a U.S. laboratory. Obtain export-control assessment of the technology and proposed access before disclosure, even though no equipment or files will leave the country during the visit.
Common pitfall: Domestic location does not eliminate export-control concerns. Conversely, foreign nationality alone does not establish that unrestricted research information is controlled or that a license is required.
31.How does financial disclosure become an institutional FCOI determination?
Disclosure provides information for institutional assessment; it is not itself a finding that a financial conflict exists. Under NIH's FCOI framework, the institution evaluates whether a significant financial interest relates to the research and could directly and significantly affect its design, conduct or reporting. Identified conflicts require appropriate management and sponsor reporting under applicable requirements. Distinguish investigator disclosure, institutional determination and institutional action. A financial relationship should neither be ignored nor automatically treated as a prohibition on participation.
Apply it
An investigator discloses an equity interest in a company supplying a study technology. Route the disclosure for institutional evaluation of its relationship to the research and any needed management, rather than allowing the investigator to decide independently that disclosure resolves the concern.
Common pitfall: Disclosure alone does not manage an identified conflict. Automatic exclusion is also overbroad because institutional assessment may identify an appropriate management arrangement for participation.
32.Why is responsible-conduct education broader than misconduct avoidance?
Responsible conduct of research education develops judgment about how research is designed, performed, reviewed and communicated. Relevant topics include data practices, authorship, mentoring, collaboration, conflicts, peer review and research misconduct. Administrative records should establish completion of the applicable educational requirements, while the educational activity should engage real decisions rather than merely collect acknowledgments. Determine requirements for the particular NIH program and participant group. A general ethics statement does not demonstrate that required instruction has occurred.
Apply it
A training program proposes an annual session using authorship and data-management cases alongside required participation records. Check that the content and delivery satisfy the program's applicable RCR requirements instead of substituting a short misconduct policy acknowledgment for the educational activity.
Common pitfall: Knowing the definition of fabrication is only part of research integrity. Attendance records alone also reveal little about whether the required educational content was provided.
33.How should an administrator respond to a compliance allegation?
A compliance allegation requires a documented response through the institution's designated process, with appropriate protection of sensitive information and separation of fact-finding from assumptions. Identify the concern, preserve relevant records and involve the offices responsible for the type of allegation. The CRA outline includes harassment training, noncompliance investigation and corrective-action planning without prescribing one universal investigation procedure. Corrective action should address substantiated causes and affected activities. Neither informal dismissal nor immediate public accusation provides a reliable institutional response.
Apply it
A staff member reports that required training records were altered after a laboratory incident. Preserve the relevant records and refer the concern through the institution's designated compliance process, limiting disclosure to appropriate participants while the facts are assessed.
Common pitfall: An allegation is not a finding, but uncertainty does not justify ignoring it. Informal promises to fix matters can compromise evidence and institutional accountability.
CRA Examination Body of Knowledge — Effective 08/01/2021 · NIH Grants Policy Statement — 8.3 Management Systems and Procedures
34.Which award terms need resolution before institutional acceptance?
Award acceptance commits the institution to the sponsor's conditions, so review the actual award rather than assuming proposal approval settled every issue. Examine scope, budget, period, restrictions, reporting and terms affecting publication, intellectual property, liability or other institutional commitments. Route issues to the appropriate authorized reviewers and negotiate unresolved provisions before acceptance. Discuss operational consequences with the investigator. A scientifically attractive project can still contain terms the institution cannot fulfill or has not authorized anyone to accept.
Apply it
An industry award includes a publication restriction absent from the proposal. Obtain institutional and legal review, clarify the sponsor's intended protection and negotiate acceptable language before the authorized official signs and the team begins relying on the agreement.
Common pitfall: A principal investigator's scientific agreement does not necessarily authorize institutional acceptance. Verbal assurances cannot safely substitute for resolving conflicting obligations in the controlling written terms.
35.How do you decide whether an award change needs prior approval?
Identify the proposed change, the sponsor's approval requirements, and any award-specific restrictions. NIH requires prior approval for a change in project scope. Under NIH GPS 8.1.2.6, prior approval is also generally required when the PD/PI or other senior/key personnel specifically named in the Notice of Award reduces effort by 25% or more from the applicable approved level. Reductions accumulate toward this threshold; separate smaller reductions do not each establish a new baseline. Initially approved effort remains the baseline until NIH approves an adjusted effort level, which then becomes the baseline for subsequent reductions. Calculate the relative reduction as (approved effort minus proposed effort) divided by approved effort. During an eligible no-cost extension, NIH generally waives prior approval for effort reductions unless program effort requirements or award terms prohibit them; measurable effort remains required. An otherwise authorized budget adjustment can proceed under delegated authority when it preserves scope and triggers no other approval requirement. See [NIH GPS 8.1.2.6](https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/HTML5/section_8/8.1.2_prior_approval_requirements.htm) and [NIH GPS 8.1.1.3](https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/HTML5/section_8/8.1.1_nih_standard_terms_of_award.htm).
Apply it
Outside a no-cost extension, assume an NIH award names a PD/PI with initially approved effort of 40% and no special effort restriction. Reducing effort to 30% represents (40 − 30) ÷ 40 = 25%, requiring prior approval. Reducing first to 36% and later to 30% also reaches a cumulative 25% reduction from the unchanged 40% baseline. If NIH approves the reduction from 40% to 30%, a subsequent reduction to 24% is (30 − 24) ÷ 30 = 20%; that reduction alone does not reach the threshold. A subsequent level of 22.5% would represent a 25% reduction from the approved adjusted baseline. During an eligible no-cost extension, apply the effort-reduction waiver while maintaining measurable effort and satisfying program requirements and award terms. Replacing an approved aim with materially different work still requires scope-change approval.
Common pitfall: Do not confuse percentage points with relative percentage reductions, reset the baseline after an internal adjustment, or assess successive reductions independently. NIH approval establishes an adjusted baseline; internal approval does not. The no-cost-extension waiver concerns effort reductions and does not authorize scope changes, eliminate measurable effort, or override program effort requirements or restrictive award terms.
NIH Grants Policy Statement · NIH Grants Policy Statement — 8.1.1 NIH Standard Terms of Award · CRA Examination Body of Knowledge — Effective 08/01/2021
36.When is a no-cost extension justified, and who may authorize it?
A no-cost extension adds time without adding sponsor funds. Supported reasons include completing approved project work or allowing orderly closeout; an unobligated balance alone is insufficient. Under NIH GPS 8.1.1.3, when applicable award terms provide recipient extension authority, the recipient may initiate one extension of up to 12 months if no award restriction prohibits it, no additional NIH funds are required, the approved scope remains unchanged, and sufficient resources are available. The eRA Commons extension feature becomes available 90 days before the project period ends and permits notification through the current project end date. After that notification window, NIH approval is required. Additional extensions or extensions exceeding the recipient's authority also require NIH approval. Award-specific restrictions and activity-code or mechanism exceptions may withhold recipient extension authority.
Apply it
Equipment downtime delays an approved experiment by six months. The award ends September 30, has sufficient resources, permits recipient extension authority, and has not previously been extended. Document the remaining work and completion schedule, confirm that the scope is unchanged, and have the authorized institutional official submit the extension notification through eRA Commons during the window ending September 30. An institutional processing deadline may require earlier internal submission, but it does not replace NIH's notification deadline. If notification is not made by September 30, or a previous extension has already used the recipient's authority, obtain NIH approval for the additional time.
Common pitfall: Do not treat 10 days before expiration as NIH's deadline for an eligible recipient-authorized first extension: notification is permitted through the current project end date. Distinguish an earlier institutional processing deadline from the sponsor's deadline. Remaining funds alone do not justify an extension, and an extension does not authorize a scope change, additional NIH funding, or an automatic second extension.
NIH Grants Policy Statement — 8.1.1 NIH Standard Terms of Award
37.How do confidentiality and material-transfer agreements differ?
A confidentiality or nondisclosure agreement governs the sharing and protection of confidential information. A material transfer agreement governs transfer and permitted use of research materials and related responsibilities. Select the agreement according to what is being exchanged, and consider whether both information and materials require protection. Review provisions concerning use, onward transfer, publication and intellectual property through appropriate institutional channels. Neither agreement should be assumed to provide research funding or resolve every issue in a broader sponsored collaboration.
Apply it
A company will first discuss confidential technical details and later send a proprietary cell line. Arrange appropriate confidentiality coverage for the discussion and a material-transfer agreement addressing the cell line's permitted use before the respective exchanges occur.
Common pitfall: An NDA does not necessarily authorize receipt or use of materials. An MTA likewise does not automatically establish funding or the terms of a sponsored project.
38.Why should invention disclosure and patent-filing decisions precede a planned public presentation?
Public disclosure before patent filing can make an invention prior art and defeat patent protection in many countries. The United States provides a qualified one-year grace period for inventor-originated public disclosures, during which the qualifying disclosure is excluded as prior art against the inventor's later application. That protection is jurisdiction-specific: many other countries will not grant patents when disclosure precedes filing. An institutional invention disclosure enables evaluation of protection and sponsor obligations, but it is neither a patent application nor a license and does not itself establish a patent filing date.
Apply it
A team plans to present a potentially patentable method next month and wants protection in the United States and abroad. Submit the invention disclosure and relevant sponsor agreements promptly. Identify when the abstract, slides, or presentation will first become public so the authorized office can coordinate an appropriate patent filing before disclosure. Waiting until after the presentation because a U.S. grace period exists could forfeit protection in countries requiring filing before public disclosure.
Common pitfall: The U.S. grace period does not guarantee patentability or preserve rights worldwide. Distinguish confidential institutional reporting from public disclosure and patent filing. Do not assume that submitting an invention disclosure alone protects the method before the conference.
CRA Examination Body of Knowledge — Effective 08/01/2021 · Pursuing international IP protection | USPTO
Financial Management21%
39.What makes a cost allowable on a sponsored award?
For NIH awards, cost analysis considers necessity and reasonableness, allocability, consistent treatment and conformity with applicable limitations. A cost can be useful yet fail because it does not benefit the award or violates a specific condition. Evaluate the transaction's substance and supporting documentation rather than its label or the account balance. Internal approval cannot override sponsor restrictions. The decision should explain why the award may bear the cost under the governing policy and circumstances.
Apply it
A laboratory wants to charge an unrelated department celebration to an NIH project because funds remain. Evaluate project benefit and applicable restrictions, then use a suitable nonsponsored source when the event does not satisfy the award's cost principles.
Common pitfall: Budget inclusion is not blanket permission to charge a cost. Actual circumstances, award benefit and applicable limitations still determine whether the expenditure is supportable.
40.How should a shared cost be allocated among benefiting projects?
Allocability connects a cost with the benefit received by a project or other cost objective. When several projects benefit, use a reasonable, documented allocation basis that reflects that relationship. Depending on the resource, relevant evidence may include usage, quantities or another supportable measure. Allocation should not be driven by which account has money available. Reassess the basis when activity changes. An equal split is appropriate only when it reasonably represents the benefits rather than serving administrative convenience.
Apply it
A shared analytical service costs $12,000, and verified usage is 75% for one award and 25% for another. Allocate $9,000 and $3,000 respectively, retaining the usage support and confirming that both awards may bear the expense.
Common pitfall: Moving a cost to an unrelated award to resolve a deficit does not establish allocability. Funding availability cannot replace evidence of benefit received.
41.How should an incorrect payroll allocation be corrected?
Payroll corrections should align salary charges with work actually performed and preserve an understandable record of the error and adjustment. Establish the affected period, correct distribution and supporting basis before processing a transfer. Budget estimates can initiate payroll allocation, but they need review when activities differ. Document why the original entry was wrong and how recurrence will be prevented. A transfer should correct attribution, not relocate a salary expense solely to improve an award balance or consume funds.
Apply it
A payroll setup error charged two months of a research assistant's salary to Award A, although the assistant worked on Award B. Verify the activity and period, document the error and process a supported correction through institutional procedures.
Common pitfall: A late correction is not justified merely by investigator preference. Explain the underlying work and original error rather than citing the receiving award's available funds.
NIH Grants Policy Statement — 7.9 Allowability of Costs/Activities
42.How does a cost-sharing commitment become a monitored obligation?
For a federal award, verify eligibility before counting a contribution toward cost sharing. Under 2 CFR 200.306, contributions must be verifiable from the recipient's records, necessary and reasonable for accomplishing project objectives, allowable under the applicable cost principles, and excluded from contributions counted toward another federal award. They generally cannot be paid by another federal award unless federal statutory authority permits that use. Contributions must also appear in the approved budget when required and satisfy other applicable requirements. Establish an approved funding source, valuation basis, schedule and supporting records, then monitor eligible actual contributions against the commitment.
Apply it
A federal award requires $30,000 in institutional cost sharing. The university proposes $30,000 of allowable salary paid from unrestricted institutional funds for documented work on the project during its authorized period. If the amount is necessary, reasonable, properly supported, included in the approved budget when required and not counted elsewhere, it can satisfy the commitment. The same salary already counted toward another federal award's required match cannot also satisfy this award's commitment. Salary paid by another federal award generally cannot supply the contribution without statutory authority permitting that use.
Common pitfall: Institutional spending does not automatically qualify as cost sharing. A separate tracking account helps document contributions but cannot cure an unallowable cost, duplicate counting or an ineligible federal funding source. Monitor both the amount contributed and the eligibility of each underlying contribution.
NIH Grants Policy Statement — 1.2 Definition of Terms · CRA Examination Body of Knowledge — Effective 08/01/2021 · Federal Register :: Request Access
43.Why is a ledger balance different from funds available to spend?
A ledger balance reflects recorded transactions, whereas a spending forecast must also consider valid commitments, pending charges and expected remaining work. Reconcile posted activity with source records, then account for items such as payroll, open orders, subrecipient invoices and associated F&A without double counting. Distinguish an encumbrance from a posted expense. A useful projection shows the assumptions and dates behind the forecast so the investigator can make decisions before an apparent balance becomes an actual deficit.
Apply it
An award shows $80,000 remaining, but unposted payroll and committed purchases total $65,000. Report a preliminary $15,000 uncommitted balance, then assess additional project needs and associated F&A before approving a new discretionary purchase from the award.
Common pitfall: A positive ledger balance can coexist with an impending deficit. Conversely, subtracting an invoice again after it posts understates availability through double counting.
NIH Grants Policy Statement — 8.3 Management Systems and Procedures · CRA Examination Body of Knowledge — Effective 08/01/2021
44.How should initial subrecipient risk assessment determine monitoring?
For federal subawards, 2 CFR 200.332 requires the pass-through entity to evaluate each subrecipient's risk to determine appropriate monitoring. Relevant initial assessment factors include experience with the same or similar subawards, previous audit results, new personnel or new or substantially changed systems, and the extent and results of federal agency monitoring. Consider what each fact indicates about the subrecipient's ability to meet financial, performance, and compliance requirements. The regulation does not prescribe a universal numerical risk score. Document the assessment and connect identified risks to proportionate monitoring activities.
Apply it
A prospective subrecipient has strong scientific experience but a new finance director, a substantially changed accounting system, and an unresolved procurement audit finding. Provide technical assistance on award requirements, review procurement documentation more closely, and consider a site visit to assess implementation of controls. Favorable federal monitoring and resolved audit findings may support less intensive additional monitoring, while required financial and performance report reviews continue.
Common pitfall: A respected institution or clean historical audit does not eliminate risks introduced by staff turnover or system changes. Reassess monitoring when unsupported invoices, missed reports, or new findings emerge. Verify corrective action instead of treating an explanation or promised improvement as resolution.
NIH Grants Policy Statement — 15.2 Administrative and Other Requirements · Federal Register :: Request Access
45.What should invoice review establish before payment?
Invoice review should establish that a charge corresponds to the applicable agreement, supported activity and payment conditions. Verify the billing period, cumulative amounts, relevant cost detail and evidence of required performance or acceptance. Check for duplication and resolve discrepancies with the responsible parties. Separate an invoice's arithmetic accuracy from the legitimacy of its underlying charges. Accounts-receivable monitoring similarly distinguishes a properly billed amount from cash actually collected, prompting follow-up on unresolved or disputed sponsor payments.
Apply it
A vendor invoices the full equipment price, but receiving records show only one of two units arrived. Compare the invoice with the order and delivery terms, then resolve the discrepancy before approving payment for unsupported or unaccepted items.
Common pitfall: A correct invoice total does not prove delivery or contract compliance. Payment review should not become a mechanical match of account number and available balance.
CRA Examination Body of Knowledge — Effective 08/01/2021 · NIH Grants Policy Statement — 8.3 Management Systems and Procedures
46.How should an NIH advance cash request be calculated?
An advance cash request should reflect the recipient's immediate cash requirements and account for applicable federal cash already on hand. Award authority is not the same as a current need to draw the entire amount. Coordinate expected disbursements with existing cash and the relevant payment-system requirements. Reconcile requests with expenditures so excess cash does not accumulate simply because funding is available. The calculation should support timely project payments while minimizing the interval between receipt and disbursement.
Apply it
A recipient expects $45,000 in immediate eligible disbursements and already holds $12,000 in applicable federal cash. Assuming no other adjustments, request $33,000 rather than the full $45,000 or the entire undrawn award balance from the payment system.
Common pitfall: Drawing the full award to simplify administration confuses spending authority with cash need. Existing applicable cash must be considered before requesting additional advance funds.
47.How should final financial reporting handle unresolved transactions?
A final financial report should reconcile with supported award activity under the sponsor's reporting rules. Identify outstanding invoices, commitments, credits and corrections before preparing final figures, and distinguish an allowable obligation from an unsupported estimate. Coordinate with subrecipients and institutional finance so material omissions are resolved. Follow applicable procedures if a later adjustment becomes necessary. Filing a report does not transform an unallowable charge into an allowable one or eliminate subsequent audit and repayment responsibilities.
Apply it
Before a final NIH report, an administrator discovers an omitted allowable subrecipient invoice and a duplicate internal charge. Reconcile both against supporting records, obtain needed information and report accurate figures through the applicable closeout process and required institutional review.
Common pitfall: Submitting an unreconciled ledger total can preserve known errors. Final reporting is an accountability step, not a mechanism for making unresolved transactions disappear.
NIH Grants Policy Statement — 8.6 Closeout · NIH Grants Policy Statement — 8.3 Management Systems and Procedures
48.What must support an F&A rate proposal?
An F&A rate proposal requires a supportable relationship between indirect-cost pools and the activities used to allocate those costs. Accurate financial, organizational and space information helps establish that relationship. Distinguish developing or supporting a rate proposal from applying an established rate to one award. The CRA outline includes preparing proposals and materials for external preparation; it does not prescribe one universal institutional rate. Consistent source records and clearly documented assumptions are more defensible than a desired recovery target.
Apply it
An institution prepares information for an external F&A rate specialist. Reconcile cost records and space-use information, identify inconsistent classifications and document corrections before the data are used to support the rate proposal and its institutional allocation assumptions.
Common pitfall: A rate proposal is not simply a calculation designed to reach a preferred percentage. Inconsistent cost or space classifications can undermine the supporting allocation rationale.
CRA Examination Body of Knowledge — Effective 08/01/2021 · NIH Grants Policy Statement — 7.4 Reimbursement of Indirect Costs
49.How is recovered F&A distributed under an institutional policy?
F&A recovery distribution allocates recovered indirect-cost revenue according to the institution's applicable policy. It is a separate calculation from determining sponsor-reimbursable F&A. First establish the amount actually recovered using the authorized rate and base, then apply the stated internal distribution percentages. Do not assume that every institution returns the same share to a college, department or investigator. The CRA outline expressly includes distributing F&A recovery, so identify both the recovery amount and the governing institutional allocation rule.
Apply it
Assume $150,000 of eligible costs generate F&A at 40%, producing $60,000 recovery. A hypothetical institutional policy allocates 30% of recovery to the college. The college receives $18,000; that internal allocation does not change the sponsor's F&A calculation.
Common pitfall: Applying a distribution percentage to direct costs uses the wrong starting amount. Internal revenue sharing also does not create a different sponsor reimbursement rate.
50.How should a sponsored equipment purchase be reviewed?
Procurement review connects the proposed purchase with project need, available authority, applicable purchasing procedures and accurate financial treatment. Confirm specifications, timing, funding source and any sponsor approval or restriction before committing funds. Review requisitions and supporting documents for consistency rather than assuming that investigator approval settles every issue. Apply the institution's and award's relevant definitions and thresholds; the CRA outline does not establish a universal equipment threshold. Delivery, acceptance and related records support later payment and accountability.
Apply it
A laboratory requests a major instrument near project end. Review its necessity for the remaining approved work, delivery timing, applicable approval requirements and purchasing documentation before issuing the order, using the award's conditions and institutional procurement procedures.
Common pitfall: An available balance does not establish that a late purchase benefits the award. Do not import a remembered equipment threshold without checking its applicability.
CRA Examination Body of Knowledge — Effective 08/01/2021 · NIH Grants Policy Statement — 7.2 The Cost Principles
51.What turns an audit finding into effective corrective action?
Corrective action should address the cause of a finding, the affected transactions and the control needed to prevent recurrence. Assign responsibility, a completion date and a way to verify effectiveness. Returning a questioned amount may resolve one financial consequence without fixing the failed process. Internal controls include defined responsibilities, appropriate review and follow-up on exceptions. Audit readiness therefore depends on usable records and functioning controls throughout the award, rather than assembling explanations only after auditors identify a problem.
Apply it
An audit finds repeated unsupported payroll transfers caused by unrestricted approval access. Correct affected transactions, revise approval responsibilities, train staff and review later transfers to determine whether the revised control actually prevents the same documentation problem from recurring.
Common pitfall: A policy reminder alone may not address a system or authority defect. Corrective action needs an owner and evidence that the underlying problem was resolved.
NIH Grants Policy Statement — 8.3 Management Systems and Procedures · CRA Examination Body of Knowledge — Effective 08/01/2021
General Management15%
52.How should a research-administration job description define success?
A useful job description identifies responsibilities, required capabilities, decision authority and working relationships. Connect those duties with the office's actual service needs, such as proposal review, account monitoring or training. Distinguish essential qualifications from capabilities that can be developed after hiring. Clear expectations support recruitment, onboarding and performance evaluation using the same underlying role. The CRA outline includes writing descriptions and managing staff, but it does not prescribe a universal staffing model or credential requirement for every position.
Apply it
An office needs stronger post-award reconciliation. Define that responsibility, relevant analytical skills and escalation authority in the vacancy description, then use matching interview questions and onboarding tasks rather than advertising a generic administrative role with unrelated preferred qualifications.
Common pitfall: A list of vague traits cannot establish whether a candidate can perform the work. Excessive unrelated requirements can obscure the actual needs of the role.
53.How can a search committee compare candidates consistently?
Consistent candidate review starts with job-related criteria established before evaluating applicants. Use structured questions and evidence of relevant capabilities so different reviewers assess the same underlying requirements. Record the basis for judgments and coordinate appointment actions with Human Resources under institutional procedures. A work example can reveal applied skill that a title alone does not establish. The educational principle is alignment among the job description, selection evidence and role expectations, rather than reliance on familiarity or an undefined sense of fit.
Apply it
For a proposal-review position, ask shortlisted candidates to analyze the same fictional budget discrepancy. Evaluate their reasoning against agreed criteria, combine that evidence with the structured interview and coordinate the hiring process with the institution's Human Resources staff.
Common pitfall: Changing selection criteria after meeting a favored candidate undermines comparability. Prior institutional affiliation or a confident presentation does not independently demonstrate the required analytical skills.
54.What makes staff performance feedback actionable?
Actionable feedback connects an observed behavior with its consequence, the expected standard and a practical improvement plan. Use evidence from the employee's assigned responsibilities rather than vague personal judgments. Examine whether workload, training or unclear authority contributed to the problem before selecting a response. Define how improvement will be assessed and when progress will be reviewed. Performance management should also recognize effective work so expectations remain balanced and understandable across routine service, accuracy and professional development.
Apply it
A staff member repeatedly submits reconciliations late. Review workload and training, identify the specific missed expectations and agree on a revised work plan with interim checkpoints, then evaluate timeliness and accuracy against the same documented responsibilities during follow-up.
Common pitfall: A demand to 'be more careful' supplies no observable standard. Blaming the employee alone can miss a workload or process defect requiring managerial action.
55.How should a training curriculum demonstrate practical learning?
A practical curriculum links learning objectives to the decisions staff must make, then uses relevant exercises and feedback to assess those capabilities. Attendance establishes participation but does not show that a learner can apply a rule. Sequence foundational material before complex scenarios and update content when procedures change. Use recurring errors or service needs to target instruction. The CRA outline includes developing training materials, curricula and certificate programs, so distinguish course administration from evidence that instruction improves performance.
Apply it
After teaching shared-cost allocation, give staff a new usage-based allocation case and review their explanations. Use errors to revise instruction, then examine later work samples to determine whether the learning transfers to actual award administration decisions.
Common pitfall: A satisfaction survey measures reaction rather than demonstrated competence. A completion certificate can document participation without proving that the learner can apply the content.
56.What separates a policy from a usable procedure?
A policy establishes an institutional requirement or governing principle, while a procedure describes how people carry it out. A usable procedure identifies triggers, responsibilities, required information, decision points and escalation routes. Align forms and system instructions with that process, assign ownership and control revisions so obsolete directions do not remain in circulation. The CRA outline includes policies, procedures and routing forms. Effective administration requires the operating steps to implement the policy without inventing authority that the policy never delegated.
Apply it
A university policy requires advance approval for institutional commitments. Develop a procedure showing who submits the request, what supporting information is needed, who approves and how changes are routed, then update the associated form to match those steps.
Common pitfall: A form can collect signatures without explaining authority or decision criteria. Detailed instructions are also unreliable when they contradict the governing policy or current system.
57.How can an office preserve service continuity during staff absence?
Service continuity depends on documented work status, shared procedural knowledge and appropriately assigned backup responsibility. Identify time-sensitive activities, records needed by a substitute and the authority required to act. Cross-training should preserve necessary review and access controls rather than simply sharing personal credentials. A handoff should explain outstanding decisions and deadlines, not only list file locations. The CRA outline's office-management and systems tasks support building processes that remain usable when the usual administrator is unavailable.
Apply it
Before an administrator's leave, assign a trained backup for proposal deadlines, provide access through approved institutional arrangements and document each application's status, next action and unresolved issue so the backup can act within delegated authority during the absence.
Common pitfall: Sharing a password substitutes personal access for proper authorization. An undocumented inbox handoff also leaves a backup unable to identify urgent commitments or pending decisions.
CRA Examination Body of Knowledge — Effective 08/01/2021 · NIH Grants Policy Statement — 8.3 Management Systems and Procedures
58.How should institutional research reports define their data?
Institutional reports are useful when their measures, periods and source records are explicit. Distinguish proposals submitted, awards received, authorized funding and expenditures because each describes a different activity. Reconcile duplicates and amendments before aggregating totals. Space reports likewise need agreed definitions and collaboration with the responsible departments. The CRA outline includes providing award data and preparing space-allocation reports; the educational decision is to choose measures that answer the institutional question rather than combine incompatible figures into one impressive total.
Apply it
Leadership asks whether proposal activity increased. Compare consistently defined submissions across equivalent periods, separating proposal requests from award receipts and expenditures, and explain how resubmissions or amendments are counted before presenting the trend for institutional planning and discussion.
Common pitfall: Combining requested and awarded dollars overstates a single measure. A report's polished appearance cannot compensate for inconsistent definitions, periods or duplicate records in its totals.
59.What makes committee minutes useful for institutional follow-through?
Committee work becomes actionable when its purpose, decision authority and expected outputs are clear. Minutes should record decisions, assigned actions, responsible parties and relevant deadlines accurately enough to support follow-through. Distinguish a discussion or recommendation from an authorized institutional decision. Share records through the appropriate institutional process while protecting sensitive content. The CRA outline includes forming committees, serving on them and preparing minutes, so administrative value comes from accountable decisions rather than merely documenting that a meeting occurred.
Apply it
A cross-office committee recommends a revised routing process but cannot approve policy. Record the recommendation, the office responsible for obtaining approval and the target date, then track that action rather than announcing the discussed change as immediately effective institutional policy.
Common pitfall: A meeting discussion does not automatically change institutional requirements. Minutes that omit owners and deadlines can preserve conversation while leaving every practical action unresolved.
60.How should an outside proposal consultant's work be controlled?
An outside grant writer or proposal consultant should have a defined scope, deliverables, schedule and review process aligned with the institution's needs. Clarify confidentiality, permitted information access and responsibility for accuracy and final approval through the appropriate agreement. External assistance does not transfer the institution's submission authority or the investigator's responsibility for the research description. Evaluate delivered work against the agreed service rather than an assumed guarantee of funding. The CRA outline expressly includes contracting with grant writers and hiring proposal consultants.
Apply it
A department hires a consultant to edit a proposal narrative. Define the editing deliverable, review dates and confidentiality expectations, while retaining investigator verification and institutional approval of the final application through the established submission process before it reaches the sponsor.
Common pitfall: A consultant's expertise does not authorize institutional commitments or submission. Payment for writing assistance also does not establish that every statement or budget assumption is accurate.
What to focus on during revision
The following are CertMedbry study suggestions. Use the official outline to check the full scope of your examination.
- Give the largest share of study time to Collection and Dissemination of Information, especially funding fit, proposal development, compliance coordination, subawards and account lifecycle decisions.
- Practise connecting every requested or charged cost to project benefit, supporting evidence, sponsor conditions and the correct calculation base.
- Distinguish scientific judgment, institutional authorization and sponsor approval; identify which actor can make each decision.
- Recognize separate compliance determinations: human-subject status, exemption, NIH clinical-trial classification, animal oversight, export control and financial conflict management.
- Use the official outline to extend beyond these selected concepts, including travel monitoring, clinical-trial agreements, institutional service and other listed tasks.
- Apply dates and recipient status carefully in NIH's 2026 BESH and international animal-work examples.
A practical preparation plan
1. Map the full outline to your experience
Read all four official domains and mark tasks you perform, understand indirectly or have never encountered. Allocate study effort using the published 44%/20%/21%/15% weights, then increase attention to unfamiliar responsibilities.
2. Build one project-lifecycle case
Follow a fictional project from funding search through proposal, acceptance, subaward, monitoring and closeout. At each stage identify the controlling document, responsible authority, required evidence and next administrative decision.
3. Work the financial relationships
Calculate person months, capped salary, eligible F&A bases, recovery distributions, shared-cost allocations and cash needs. State assumptions explicitly and distinguish posted expenses from commitments, reimbursement authority and cash.
4. Compare easily confused decisions
Explain the differences between disclosure and FCOI determination, consent and IRB approval, an advance account and sponsor reimbursement authority, an NDA and an MTA, and a ledger balance and forecast availability.
5. Use the questions diagnostically
Answer the 20 questions, then explain why each alternative is less appropriate before reading the rationale. Classify errors as a scope misunderstanding, authority error, missed factual cue or calculation error; revisit the corresponding concept.
6. Expand and revisit
Use spaced flashcard review and unfamiliar tasks from the official outline to guide further study. Check current sponsor policies and the current candidate handbook for date-sensitive content and examination arrangements.
Use your sample score as a starting point
The free set contains 20 original practice questions. It is a small learning sample, not an official examination or a validated pass prediction. Review each explanation and its source before moving to another topic.
Start the free sampleOfficial sources and updates
- RACC — Introduction
- RACC — Candidate Handbook for Certified Research Administrators
- Certification Examination for Research Administrators — Candidate Handbook 2026
- RACC — CRA Body of Knowledge
- CRA Examination Body of Knowledge — Effective 08/01/2021
- NIH Grants Policy Statement
- NIH — Develop Your Budget
- NIH Grants Policy Statement — 7.2 The Cost Principles
- NIH Grants Policy Statement — 7.4 Reimbursement of Indirect Costs
- NIH Grants Policy Statement — 7.9 Allowability of Costs/Activities
- NIH Grants Policy Statement — 8.3 Management Systems and Procedures
- NIH Grants Policy Statement — 8.6 Closeout
- NIH Grants Policy Statement — 15.2 Administrative and Other Requirements
- HHS OHRP — 45 CFR 46 FAQs
- NIH — Financial Conflict of Interest
- Bureau of Industry and Security — What Is a Deemed Export?
- NIH — Types of Agreements
- NIH Grants Policy Statement — 8.1.1 NIH Standard Terms of Award
- NIH Grants Policy Statement — 6.3 Cash Request
- NIH Grants Policy Statement — 1.2 Definition of Terms
- NIH — Responsible Conduct of Research
- NIH — NOT-OD-26-032: Basic Experimental Studies in Humans (BESH) Will No Longer Be Considered Clinical Trials by the NIH
- NIH — NOT-OD-26-067: Implementation of Changes for Basic Experimental Studies with Humans
- NIH Grants Policy Statement — 4.1.1 Animal Welfare Requirements
- Federal Register :: Request Access
- Pursuing international IP protection | USPTO
- Deemed exports | Bureau of Industry and Security
- Responsible Conduct of Research Training | NIH Office of Intramural Research
- Federal Register :: Request Access
- Code of Federal Regulations
- deemed-exports-faqs.pdf
- guidelines-preparing-export-license-applications-involving-foreign-persons
Confirm current eligibility, fees, scheduling and policies directly with the examination provider. CertMedbry is independent and is not endorsed by these organisations. How we handle content and corrections.