Candidate Selection: A Definitive Guide
Learn of candidate selection to improve your candidate selection process and build a high-performing workforce.
PAGE CONTENTS
section one
Introduction
When it comes to reasonable adjustment on the basis of disability or neurodivergence, extra time on candidate assessments is the first line of support. For candidates who require this kind of adjustment, their journey through education will have involved extra time during examinations, representing a normal part of their scholastic experience. Consequently, many such candidates expect this adjustment to be made when completing candidate assessments for employee selection.
However, not all test publishers allow for extra time on their assessments, which we feel is a grave error in judgement. Legally, candidates with disabilities are entitled to reasonable adjustments and accommodations in the workplace, and we strongly feel that extra time meets the definition of reasonable.
Audio Reading: The Importance of Extra Time in Candidate Assessments
Designed for accessibility: listen to the narrated post for your convenience.
In this article, we will outline why we believe that extra time is an essential adjustment for candidates with disabilities or neurodivergence.
section two
Information processing speed
When it comes to neurodivergence, i.e. dyslexia, dyscalculia, ADHD, autism, or dyspraxia etc., the research suggests that overall cognitive ability tends to be similar (or in some cases, higher) than in neurotypical candidates on average. However, differences in scores can be observed at the group level which favour neurotypical candidates, suggesting that some aspects of test-taking advantage the neurotypical. Based on the research, the culprit seems to be information processing speed. Dyslexia, for example, is very commonly associated with slower information processing, especially with verbal information.
Time limits in candidate assessments are very rarely an integral part of the assessment itself. Time limits largely serve to keep the pace and minimise opportunities for cheating; they do not contribute to the score itself.
In the workplace, employees are never given 1-3 minute deadlines to solve problems, making time limits unrelated to any aspect of the workplace. Given that information processing is likely the main issue that holds back neurodivergent candidates, it only seems logical to allow extra time as a reasonable adjustment.
Those with more serious impairments in information processing could receive as much as 50% extra time or more, and this is often outlined in official documentation from psychologists. As a result, we believe that assessment platforms should not only be compatible with extra time requirements but be able to provide a custom amount of extra time, depending on the specific candidate's information processing speed and adjustment recommendations.
section three
Accessibility software
Another essential reason to include extra time as part of a reasonable adjustment for disability or neurodivergence is the impact of accessibility software. Some candidates, particularly those with visual impairments, will require a screen reader to complete candidate assessments.
Screen readers simply take longer to convey information to candidates, and for many reasons.
Screen readers may attempt to read everything they see on a screen, including irrelevant information, i.e. page numbers, navigation buttons, meta data etc. This slows things down for candidates who use them, requiring more time in order to actually reach the relevant question content.
Additionally, reading speed is often much slower than when reading personally, requiring longer time limits to actually convey the same information.
Reading speed is something that can often be adjusted, depending on the accessibility software used, but if information processing again is an issue, a slower reading speed may be required.
Candidates shouldn’t be pressured into using faster screen reading speeds than they would otherwise feel comfortable with, as this reduces the candidate experience and likely harms the validity of the assessment.
Follow me for more expert insights
Stay updated with my latest tips, insights, and advice to help you stay ahead in your industry.
section four
Recognition and validation
Although most organisations and test publishers want the appearance of being inclusive and accepting, in practice this is often not the case. If a candidate asks for extra time, they are taking a significant risk in their careers, showing vulnerability and openness with their prospective employer. To deny this request because “In the job, we won’t give you extra time” not only fails to offer a reasonable adjustment to the assessment but also shows that no reasonable adjustment will be made to their role either.
Legally speaking, employees are entitled to a reasonable adjustment, and allowing for slightly slower information processing should be a very small request.
By offering extra time, especially when asked, organisations highlight to candidates that they are welcome and that adjustments are available throughout the whole talent lifecycle. The most common argument against extra time is the notion that extra time won’t be offered in-role, which is a myopic perspective to say the least. Even if adjustments and accommodations are available to employees, candidates are unlikely to believe this to be true if their very first request for adjustment is denied, irrevocably damaging trust.
Perhaps most insidiously, by refusing accommodations to neurodivergent candidates, organisations may be invalidating the idea of neurodivergence. Many people are inherently dismissive of the very idea of neurodivergence, suggesting that ADHD or autism aren’t “real” or are over-diagnosed. For neurodivergent candidates who are brave enough to request accommodations and face the very real threat of overt discrimination, refusal of accommodation could feel invalidating, dismissing their needs and preferences. Even if the organisation or test publisher doesn’t actually feel this way, this perception will be very hard to shake.
section six
Conclusion and Summary
At Test Partnership, we are of the opinion that extra time is a reasonable adjustment on the basis of disability and neurodivergence.
Information processing speed is the likely culprit for differences in scores between neurotypes, and giving extra time does an excellent job of levelling the playing field. Moreover, accessibility software simply takes more time per question than answering questions conventionally, requiring extra time. And lastly, the act of refusing extra time will inevitably be seen as a hostile position, giving candidates serious doubts about the organisation's commitment to neurodiversity.
For more information on how Test Partnership could help support neurodiversity in the workplace, feel free to book a call with us to discuss your requirements.
