RADP (CASRAI)

Research Administration Foundations Certification — Professional

LevelProfessionalRADRADP (CASRAI)

Lessons

12 modules

Domains

Exam blueprint

Exam items

Per attempt

70%

Pass mark

Fixed, uncurved

Retake wait

Days

What you earn

The credential itself

Pass the examination and CASRAI issues this certificate and the post-nominal RADP (CASRAI), signed by the Programme Director and verifiable by anyone, permanently, from the code on its face.

CASRAI Certification

Certificate of Professional Competence

This is to certify that

Dr. Amelia R. Hartley

has completed the prescribed programme of study and passed the examination in

Research Administration Foundations — Professional

and is admitted to the designationRADP (CASRAI)

Verify atcasrai.org/verify/CASRAI-RAD-2026-C6L5AZ

Specimen. Issued as a signed PDF and as a machine-readable Open Badge; the holder and code shown are illustrative.

How it appears on your CV

Certifications

RADP (CASRAI) — Research Administration Foundations, Professional

CASRAI·Issued Mar 2026·Credential ID CASRAI-RAD-2026-C6L5AZ

casrai.org/verify/CASRAI-RAD-2026-C6L5AZ

Every certificate is issued under the signature of Dr. Diana Nieves Castro, MD, Programme Director of CASRAI Certification, who sets the syllabus, blueprint and pass mark for this credential.

It certifies that its holder passed the CASRAI examination for this course on the date shown, scored against the blueprint and pass mark published on this page — and anyone can confirm it from the verification code, without an account and without contacting us.

About this credential

What it covers

Body of knowledge

Exam blueprint

The exam is assembled to these weights on every attempt. They are published before purchase because a blueprint you cannot see is not a blueprint.

Domains and weights8 domains · 39 scored items
Domain	Weight	Items
The research funding landscape and sponsor ecosystemP1	11%≈ 4 items	≈ 4
Institutional structures, roles and the sponsored programs officeP2	10%≈ 4 items	≈ 4
The award lifecycle end to endP3	16%≈ 6 items	≈ 6
Pre-award fundamentalsP4	16%≈ 6 items	≈ 6
Post-award fundamentalsP5	18%≈ 7 items	≈ 7
Compliance touchpoints across the lifecycleP6	18%≈ 7 items	≈ 7
Research administration systems, data and information flowsP7	6%≈ 2 items	≈ 2
Professional ethics, conduct and developmentP8	5%≈ 2 items	≈ 2
Total	100%	39

Item counts are approximate. Each attempt draws a fresh form to the weights above, so the exact number of items per domain varies between attempts.

Syllabus

12 modules, 12 lessons

Every lesson and every learning outcome is listed. The lesson bodies open on enrolment; nothing else about the course is withheld.

12 modules · 12 lessons

Lesson material opens once you are enrolled. The full syllabus and every learning outcome are shown here so you can judge the coverage before you pay.

Module 1
P1
1 lesson
1. Locked.Funding systems in comparisonLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - P1.1 [An] Compare the administrative architecture of two funding systems and identify where an assumption from one would fail in the other.
  - P1.2 [A] Determine the governing rulebook for a described award, including the order of precedence among the award document, incorporated terms, the opportunity, and the general framework beneath them.
  - P1.3 [An] Analyse a flow-down chain (funder → prime → sub → sub-sub) and identify which obligations travel and which stop.
  - P1.4 [E] Evaluate whether a described funding arrangement is assistance or procurement in substance, regardless of its label.
Module 2
P2
1 lesson
1. Locked.Institutional design and the administrator’s authorityLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - P2.1 [An] Analyse an institutional structure and identify where accountability is ambiguous.
  - P2.2 [E] Evaluate whether a described delegation of authority is appropriate.
  - P2.3 [A] Determine, for a contested task, which office owns it and on what basis.
  - P2.4 [An] Identify the control weaknesses created by a described centralisation or decentralisation decision.
Module 3
P3
1 lesson
1. Locked.The lifecycle as a control systemLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - P3.1 [An] Given an award in difficulty, diagnose which lifecycle stage produced the problem.
  - P3.2 [E] Evaluate whether a described handover between pre-award and post-award is adequate.
  - P3.3 [An] Trace an audit finding backward to its originating decision.
  - P3.4 [A] Construct a control map for a described award, identifying the evidence produced at each gate.
  - P3.5 [E] Evaluate an at-risk spending request and state the conditions under which it should be approved.
Module 4
P4
1 lesson
1. Locked.Pre-award for the generalistLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - P4.1 [An] Read a funding opportunity and identify every requirement that creates an institutional obligation.
  - P4.2 [A] Review a draft budget and identify errors in category, base, rate application and internal consistency.
  - P4.3 [E] Evaluate whether a proposed cost-sharing commitment should be accepted.
  - P4.4 [An] Identify what is missing from a proposal package against the announcement's requirements.
  - P4.5 [A] Determine the correct escalation for a described pre-award problem.
Module 5
P5
1 lesson
1. Locked.Post-award for the generalistLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - P5.1 [An] Review a transaction listing and identify the items requiring query.
  - P5.2 [E] Evaluate whether a proposed cost transfer is defensible.
  - P5.3 [A] Determine whether a described action requires sponsor prior approval, and under which authority.
  - P5.4 [An] Identify the risk indicators in a described subrecipient relationship.
  - P5.5 [E] Evaluate the adequacy of documentation supporting a contested cost.
  - P5.6 [A] Construct a closeout plan for a described award.
Module 6
P6
1 lesson
1. Locked.Compliance in practiceLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - P6.1 [An] Given a complex project description, map every compliance regime engaged and the sequence in which approvals must be obtained.
  - P6.2 [E] Evaluate whether a described compliance situation requires escalation, and to whom.
  - P6.3 [An] Identify the compliance exposure created by a described international collaboration.
  - P6.4 [A] Apply disclosure requirements to a described set of investigator affiliations and support.
  - P6.5 [E] Evaluate whether an institution's described response to a compliance failure is adequate.
Module 7
P7
1 lesson
1. Locked.Research information, data quality and reportingLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - P7.1 [An] Analyse a reporting failure and locate its origin in the data estate.
  - P7.2 [E] Evaluate the adequacy of a described reconciliation process.
  - P7.3 [A] Specify the data required to produce a given external report.
  - P7.4 [An] Identify the identifier and metadata gaps that prevent records joining across systems.
Module 8
P8
1 lesson
1. Locked.Professional practice, judgement and communicationLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - P8.1 [E] Evaluate an ethically contested request and justify a course of action.
  - P8.2 [A] Communicate a refusal to a senior investigator in terms of the rule and its rationale.
  - P8.3 [An] Identify the professional risks in a described working relationship.
  - P8.4 [E] Evaluate the equity implications of a described administrative practice.
Module 9
P9
1 lesson
1. Locked.Working across jurisdictionsLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - P9.1 [An] Identify, in a described multi-country collaboration, which rules apply to which partner and where they conflict.
  - P9.2 [E] Evaluate whether a cost allowable under one framework can be charged in a project funded under another.
  - P9.3 [A] Determine the reporting obligations of an institution acting as a partner in a foreign-funded consortium.
  - P9.4 [An] Identify the compliance and security exposures of a described international arrangement.
Module 10
P10
1 lesson
1. Locked.Reading the primary sourcesLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - P10.1 [A] Locate the governing provision for a described question in the correct primary source.
  - P10.2 [An] Determine which version of a source was in force at a given date.
  - P10.3 [E] Evaluate the reliability of a secondary source against the primary text.
  - P10.4 [A] Construct a monitoring routine that would have caught a described policy change.
Module 11
P11
1 lesson
1. Locked.Integrative case A: the award that went wrongLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - P11.1 [E] Make and justify a decision at each lifecycle gate. P11.2 [An] On revelation of the finding, trace it to its origin. P11.3 [E] Propose controls that would have prevented it without creating disproportionate burden. ---
Module 12
P12
1 lesson
1. Locked.Integrative case B: the multi-party projectLocked
  On completion you will be able to
  - P12.1 [An] Map obligations across parties and funders. P12.2 [E] Prioritise a response to the lapsed approval. P12.3 [E] Evaluate whether to continue, suspend or terminate the subaward, with reasoning. ---

Assessment

How the exam works

The exam is closed-book and multiple choice. Each attempt draws a fresh form to the domain weights above, so no two attempts are the same paper and no answer key circulates. The pass mark is 70% and is fixed — there is no curve, no quota and no adjustment by cohort.

Scoring is immediate. You are shown your overall result and, for every item, the option you chose, the correct option and the reasoning behind it — whether you passed or not. A failed attempt may be retaken after 90 days. The wait exists so a retake is a second attempt at the material rather than a second attempt at remembering the paper.

Forms are assembled to the blueprint above or not at all: where a domain cannot yet be sampled to that standard, the exam declines to start rather than issue an unbalanced paper. Your material and progress are never affected, and there is no time limit on when you sit.

Passing candidates are issued a certificate with a verification code. Anyone can check that code on our public verification page without an account and without contacting us.

Certifying authority

Signed by Dr. Diana Nieves Castro, MD

CASRAI’s certification programme is academically and medically directed by Dr. Diana Nieves Castro, MD, Programme Director, who sets the syllabus and blueprint for this credential and signs every certificate issued under it.

CASRAI has maintained the terminology and reporting standards of research administration for over a decade. It assumed leadership of the CRediT contributor-roles taxonomy in 2014 and carried it through to adoption as ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022, now in use by publishers, funders and institutions worldwide. This examination is drawn from that body of work.

What the credential certifies: that its holder passed the CASRAI examination for this course on the date shown, scored against the blueprint and pass mark published above — verifiable by anyone, permanently, from the code on its face.

Before you buy

The syllabus, learning outcomes, exam blueprint, pass mark and retake policy on this page are the complete specification of this credential. Everything that determines whether you pass is published here before you pay.

Questions about this credential →

The ladder