How Fair are Psychometric Tests for Neurodivergent Job Candidates?

Ben is the chief psychologist at Test Partnership, a market leading psychometric testing provider. He writes extensively on many topics, including psychology, human resources, psychometric testing, and personal development.

How Fair are Psychometric Tests for Neurodivergent Job Candidates?

One of the most common objections I hear regarding psychometric assessments for pre-employment testing is their impact on neurodiversity. HR professionals are often extremely concerned that adding psychometrics to their recruitment processes will create artificial barriers for neurodivergent candidates, harming their neurodiversity objectives. This is understandable, as the very term “neurodivergent” suggests neurological differences that could affect the effectiveness of psychometric testing. However, the reality is that these assessments are far more robust than many realize, and adjustments can easily be made to mitigate potential issues. Compare this to traditional assessments such as interviews, which are extremely difficult to adjust for neurodivergent candidates and are notorious for being susceptible to bias.

In this article, I will outline how organizations can use psychometric assessments without unfair bias against neurodivergent candidates.

Cognitive Assessments

The first thing to recognize about cognitive assessments is that neurodivergence isn’t a monolith, and different neurotypes have different challenges (and advantages) when it comes to cognitive assessment. For example, candidates with dyslexia may struggle with verbal reasoning, whereas candidates with dyscalculia may struggle with numerical reasoning. This is important because the specific challenges faced by neurodivergent candidates are quite well known, allowing for targeted adjustments to assessments that address these issues. Overall, however, actual cognitive ability is similar across neurotypes, and in the case of autism, potentially even slightly higher than in neurotypical candidates.

Often, a major distinction between the cognitive profiles of neurodivergent and neurotypical candidates is processing speed. Consequently, providing extra time as a reasonable adjustment makes perfect sense and is a powerful way to level the playing field. The importance of this approach cannot be overstated, as rarely in organizational psychology can we identify a problem so precisely and provide a highly targeted intervention to resolve it. Extra time, therefore, represents the ideal solution to the issue of reduced information processing speed—being both highly effective and easy to implement.

Additionally, other accessibility features can improve the experience for candidates, particularly those with dyslexia and ADHD. For example, changing the background color, adjusting contrast, increasing text size, or allowing the use of screen readers can make a significant difference. Many of these features are already built into devices, while others can be accessed via third-party accessibility software. The key for cognitive assessments is to work with a provider whose assessment platform is compatible with these features, enabling neurodivergent candidates to perform at their best.

Overall, cognitive assessments can be one of the fairer ways to assess neurodivergent candidates, provided that adjustments are available. Consequently, organizations should ask candidates in advance whether they need any adjustments and should be well-versed in the modifications available on their chosen assessment platform.

Behavioral Assessments

Of all the assessment methodologies, behavioral assessments require the fewest adjustments for neurodivergent candidates. The questionnaire format is rarely challenging for neurodivergent candidates, and accessibility adjustments are easy to implement where needed. Behavioral assessments typically use only rich text, which can be modified in-browser to improve readability. They also do not require time limits, so processing speed is not a limiting factor as it can be in skill- and ability-based assessments.

However, just because the assessment method itself is accommodating to neurodivergent candidates does not mean that assessors cannot misuse it to discriminate. Although research suggests that neurotypes tend to show only subtle differences in personality, assessors could choose to focus disproportionately on those differences, potentially disadvantaging specific neurotypes. That said, if a personality questionnaire correctly identifies genuine differences between neurotypes, this is not a flaw in the assessment itself—if anything, it serves as evidence of validity.

That being said, the ultimate goal of neurodiversity hiring initiatives is to ensure that all neurotypes are given the opportunity to thrive, which means making the right hires. Some neurotypes may be more likely to struggle in certain roles, and behavioral assessments could correctly identify this. For example, some roles are inherently unpredictable, lacking a consistent routine or tangible structure. This could make certain candidates with autism uncomfortable, and personality questionnaires could reveal a preference for routine. In such cases, it would be in everyone's best interest not to progress candidates who struggle with change and uncertainty, as the role could negatively impact their well-being. However, if a role is highly structured and routine-based, but the organization screens out candidates on the basis of neurodivergence regardless, this could constitute discrimination.

Overall, personality questionnaires and behavioral assessments are highly accommodating to neurodivergent applicants, but caution is still required. Organizations must carefully consider which constructs to prioritize—both to avoid discriminating against neurodivergent candidates and to ensure person-environment fit.

Situational Judgment Tests

Situational judgment tests (SJTs) are a unique type of assessment that share characteristics with both behavioral and cognitive assessments. They present candidates with hypothetical, workplace-relevant scenarios and ask them to rate or rank the effectiveness of particular responses. For example, a candidate might be told they are a manager at a bank and have uncovered evidence of financial fraud. They would then choose the most appropriate response from a set of options, serving as a proxy for their judgment and decision-making ability. Effective decision-making requires a combination of behavioral traits and cognitive abilities, which is reflected in SJT performance.

For most neurotypes, SJTs are fair and effective assessment methods that can be easily adjusted. They are typically untimed, so processing speed is not a barrier. Additionally, they are presented in rich-text format, making them easy to customize for accessibility. Many assessment providers also allow candidates to complete the assessment in multiple stages, removing the requirement to finish it in one sitting.

However, the biggest concern with SJTs is their impact on candidates with autism. People with autism are often highly literal and may struggle with hypothetical scenarios, which are central to SJTs. In fact, in the UK, a candidate successfully challenged an SJT result in court, setting a major legal precedent. Since most jobs do not require candidates to evaluate hypothetical situations in this way, SJTs can be considered inherently discriminatory against autistic candidates. Organizations must be very cautious when using SJTs with autistic candidates and should have a solid plan in place to address potential challenges.

Overall, SJTs are a fair and adaptable assessment method for most neurotypes. However, they present unique challenges for autistic candidates that cannot always be mitigated. Organizations must therefore be cautious and have a robust strategy for handling these cases.

Knowledge and Skills Tests

When controlling for experience, neurodivergent candidates are just as knowledgeable and skilled as neurotypical candidates. Consequently, the challenges related to knowledge and skills tests are similar to those of cognitive assessments. As long as time limits can be adjusted and candidates can modify the front-end display settings, these tests can be administered fairly. However, this depends on the assessment provider allowing such accommodations, so organizations should confirm this in advance.

However, neurodivergent candidates—particularly those with autism—are less likely to have extensive work experience, which could impact their performance on knowledge tests. Due to workplace discrimination, many neurodivergent candidates have had fewer opportunities for training and development than their neurotypical counterparts. Organizations should carefully consider whether new hires truly need to possess specific skills immediately or if training will be provided.

Overall, knowledge and skills tests have a fairly narrow application in selection. For early-career roles, training is usually provided, making such tests unnecessary. For experienced hires, prior work experience is often sufficient to demonstrate expertise. Skills tests, therefore, make the most sense for roles requiring two to five years of experience, where candidates are still actively learning but are not completely new to the field. In most other contexts, other assessments may be more useful.

Summary and Recommendations

In the vast majority of cases, psychometric tests for pre-employment purposes are fair for neurodivergent candidates. However, neurodivergence is not a monolith, and psychometric assessments cover a broad range of methodologies. Organizations should consider the specific needs of individuals and make adjustments accordingly. Ultimately, the goal of neurodiversity initiatives is to maximize the likelihood of hiring great employees and ensuring they thrive in their roles. Careful screening and selection are key to achieving this, and psychometric assessments provide a uniquely effective way to do so—regardless of neurotype.