Appraisal, appraisal review and appraisal consulting differ in that a review:
Correct Answer
B) Develops an opinion about the quality of another appraiser's work
Why this is correct: Appraisal review develops an opinion about the quality of another appraiser's work (completeness, adequacy, relevance, reasonableness). Its subject is the report/analysis, not the property. Why the other choices are wrong: "Requires the reviewer to hold a higher certification level" is false; competency is required, not a higher license. "May be performed only after a complaint" is incorrect; reviews are routine. "Always concludes with the reviewer's own independent opinion of value" is wrong; a review may, but need not, include a value opinion. Exam tip: Review = opinion on the work. Appraisal = opinion on the property.
Why This Is the Correct Answer
Option B states the defining feature of a review: the reviewer develops an opinion about the quality of another appraiser's work. That opinion covers whether the analyses and conclusions in the work under review are appropriate and reasonable given its own intended use and scope of work. The reviewer must be competent for the review assignment and must report the reasons for the opinion, which is what makes a review more than a checklist.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option A: Requires the reviewer to hold a higher certification level than the original appraiser
Nothing in USPAP grades reviewers by license tier; the requirement is competency for the assignment, and state or client policy may impose credential rules that USPAP itself does not. A certified residential appraiser can competently review residential work performed by anyone. Confusing an agency or lender policy with a national standard is the trap here.
Option C: May be performed only after a complaint has been filed with the state board
Reviews are ordinary business, performed by lenders, agencies, courts, insurers, and appraisal firms for quality control long before any complaint exists. Tying review to disciplinary proceedings misreads a routine service as an enforcement mechanism. Enforcement is a state board function, not a definition of the service.
Option D: Always concludes with the reviewer's own independent opinion of value
A review may include the reviewer's own opinion of value, and when it does, additional development and reporting requirements attach. It may equally conclude only that the work under review is or is not credible. The word 'always' overstates an option that is available rather than mandatory.
Property or Paper
Ask what sits on the table. If it is a property, you are appraising. If it is somebody else's report and analysis, you are reviewing. The subject decides the service, and the service decides the rules.
How to use: In any item contrasting these services, identify the subject of the opinion first, then eliminate options that describe licensing, enforcement, or mandatory outcomes rather than the subject.
Exam Tip
Words like always, only, and higher level are the fingerprints of distractors in definitional items. The correct definition usually reads plainly.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- -Treating a review as an automatic second appraisal
- -Confusing lender or agency credential policy with a USPAP requirement
- -Judging a report against the reviewer's preferred methods rather than its own scope of work
Concept Deep Dive
Analysis
USPAP separates services by what the appraiser is forming an opinion about. In an appraisal the subject is a property and the product is an opinion of value or another opinion about that property. In an appraisal review the subject is the work of another appraiser, and the product is an opinion about the quality of that work, judged for completeness, adequacy, relevance, and reasonableness in the context of the requirements applicable to it. Appraisal consulting and other analytical services address questions that are neither of those, such as feasibility or market studies. Getting the subject right is the whole trick, because the review standard's requirements follow from the fact that the thing being examined is a report and an analysis, not a house.
Background Knowledge
You need the USPAP definitions of appraisal, appraisal review, and the reviewer's role, plus the idea that the subject of a review is work rather than property. You also need the COMPETENCY RULE, since competency for a review assignment includes understanding the type of work being reviewed.
Real-World Application
A bank's chief appraiser reviews a sample of vendor reports each quarter, forming opinions on whether the analyses support the conclusions, and escalates only those where the deficiencies are material rather than stylistic.
More USPAP Questions
Which statement best defines a hypothetical condition under USPAP?
According to the Competency Rule, if an appraiser lacks the knowledge and experience to complete an assignment competently, which action is NOT acceptable?
An appraiser runs only the sales comparison approach on a standard tract home and omits the cost and income approaches. Under Standard 1 this is:
A value opinion for a subdivision as if fully built out two years from now is what kind of assignment, and what does it require?
A hypothetical condition differs from an extraordinary assumption in that a hypothetical condition:
An appraiser must disclose in the certification whether they have:
A client-imposed requirement — 'use only comps from our approved list' — is best described as:
Under Standard 1, when developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must:
The certification required by Standards Rule 2-3 must be signed by:
According to Standard 1, when developing an opinion of market value, an appraiser must analyze:
People Also Study
Real Estate Market
13.6% of exam
Property Description
11.8% of exam
Land or Site Valuation
4.5% of exam
Sales Comparison Approach
16.4% of exam
Cost Approach
13.6% of exam