Neurodiversity Hiring: Building Inclusive and Fair Assessment Processes

Employing organisations globally are waking up to the idea of neurodiversity and its importance in the workplace. Given the long history of discrimination against neurodivergent individuals, this shift represents a welcome change and a significant step in the right direction.

Perhaps most obviously, there are countless high-potential applicants who just happen to be neurodivergent. A biased selection process makes it harder to identify and screen in these applicants, causing the organisation to lose out. Moreover, neurodivergent candidates bring with them unique work styles, perspectives, occupational strengths, and modes of thinking which add value, and organisations can only capitalise on this by hiring neurodivergent candidates.

In this article, we will outline how to remove bias from your assessment processes, clearing the way for neurodivergent candidates to join your organisation and thrive.

Neurodiversity itself refers to the process of hiring a wide range of distinct neurotypes, such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyscalculia, dyspraxia, as well as people who are neurotypical. An organisation can, therefore, be called neurodiverse if its workforce has meaningful representation from all these neurotypes, not just a few. Many organisations forget the “diversity” aspect of neurodiversity and would consider an organisation comprising 100% autistic employees to be “neurodiverse” when, in fact, the opposite would be true.

In practice, however, organisations tend to over-represent neurotypical employees, as selection processes often implicitly (or even explicitly) discriminate against neurodivergent candidates, acting as a barrier to entry. This is particularly true of traditional selection processes, such as interviews and CV sifting.

Although organisations are typically most worried about the impact of psychometric assessments on neurodiversity, in most cases these assessments are substantially fairer than interviews. Rather than avoid using assessments (and instead relying excessively on interviews), organisations are well advised to follow best practices and minimise the scope for bias in assessments, which can help to support neurodiversity goals rather than hinder them.

In the next section, we will outline the challenges that neurodivergent candidates can face with these assessments, along with what makes them inherently challenging.

Neurodivergence isn’t a monolith; it encompasses many vastly different neurotypes with a diverse range of strengths and challenges. This matters because some neurotypes may experience difficulties with a specific assessment format, whereas others may have inherent advantages. Consequently, it's important to know how different assessment formats impact people with different neurotypes, anticipating issues before they arise. Moreover, there is a difference between test bias and genuine differences between neurotypes. For example, there may be genuine differences on average between neurotypes on certain personality traits, and some personality questionnaires will accurately identify this. Bias, however, means that a specific assessment is innately more difficult for a particular neurotype, reducing the effectiveness of that assessment at predicting performance for those neurotypes.

For a deeper dive into how to tailor your assessments to support neurodivergent candidates, follow your required neurotype below:

• ADHD
• Autism
• Dyscalculia
• Dyslexia
• Dyspraxia

Cognitive ability tests, also known as ability tests or aptitude tests, are the assessments that concern HR professionals and hiring managers the most. Indeed, the terminology itself, i.e. “cognitive ability” and “neurotypes”, suggests an interaction implicitly, making organisations nervous. In reality, however, different neurotypes respond differently to cognitive assessments, and adjustments tend to be quite straightforward.

Overall, processing speed tends to be the primary issue with many neurotypes, with overall levels of cognitive ability being similar between neurotypes. As a result, these assessments can be very accommodating, far more than many organisations realise.

Personality questionnaires are, as an assessment method, perhaps the fairest assessment tool when assessing neurodivergent candidates, in that very few adjustments would need to be made. With the exception of severe dyslexia, neurodivergent candidates can complete personality questionnaires without requesting accommodations, especially if the assessment platform is compatible with accessibility software. However, just because the assessment format isn't inherently difficult for specific neurotypes doesn’t mean that assessors themselves couldn't use the tools to discriminate.

Assessors could, in theory, screen candidates on the basis of specific traits which are more common in particular neurotypes, reducing selection ratios. However, this isn’t a flaw in the assessment method; it's an issue with the assessors themselves.

Situational judgement tests are also fair assessments for most neurotypes, requiring little adjustment or easily made accommodations. However, in the case of autism specifically, situational judgement tests could, and have, been successfully challenged legally. People with autism are, on average, more literal and concrete in their thinking than other neurotypes and can struggle with hypothetical situations. This makes the assessment format inherently difficult for candidates with autism specifically, in a way that can be considered bias.

Consequently, organisations must think carefully about using situational judgement tests alongside neurodiversity goals, along with a plan to address the issue if it arises.

The purpose of adjustments is to reduce the inherent disadvantages that candidates experience as a direct result of their neurodivergence, particularly when that disadvantage is irrelevant to the role. For example, candidates with autismare likely to find interviews challenging, as eye contact, body language, and the interpersonal game of saying what interviewers want to hear is harder for autistic candidates. However, those skills are functionally irrelevant in, say, a software engineering role, meaning that adjustments or accommodations would be welcomed to redress this issue.

1. Extra time is a reasonable adjustment with cognitive assessments

When it comes to cognitive assessments, extra time is the main adjustment offered to neurodivergent candidates. From the research, we know that various neurotypes process information more slowly than neurotypical candidates, which can be an issue with short time limits for questions.

Consequently, giving extra time should be considered an appropriate adjustment for neurodivergent candidates, and platforms should always accommodate this functionality.

2. Ensure compatibility with third-party accessibility software

Additionally, online assessment platforms must ensure compatibility with third-party accessibility software and native changes to the display. This includes a range of features designed to make assessments more accessible, such as changing the background colour, contrast, font colour, text size, and screen reader compatibility.

These are excellent reasonable adjustments for neurodivergent candidates, as they won’t make tasks intrinsically easier but still help level the playing field. However, not all platforms are equally compatible with third-party accessibility software, so you should always check with your provider regarding their platform's capabilities.

3. Ensure compatibility with third-party accessibility software

Lastly, for any of these adjustments to be successful, organisations have to enthusiastically communicate their availability to candidates. Neurodivergent candidates are often very hesitant to share requirements with employers, in fear of experiencing explicit discrimination.

Instead, let candidates know, both clearly and repeatedly, that they can safely share information regarding their requirements, and that every attempt will be made to offer reasonable accommodations.

Personality assessments are widely used in recruitment and development processes, yet their fairness for neurodivergent individuals—such as those with autism, ADHD, or dyslexia—is often questioned. While concerns about potential biases are valid, the issue typically lies not with the assessments themselves but rather in their interpretation. Modern personality tests, particularly those based on the Five Factor Model, are designed to objectively describe behavioural tendencies rather than judge or penalise individuals for their traits.

It's important to understand the truth about personality tests with neurodivergent candidates. When personality tests are thoughtfully constructed and their results interpreted with an understanding of neurodiversity, they can effectively highlight unique strengths and talents that might otherwise remain unnoticed. Adopting this inclusive approach not only enhances fairness but also significantly enriches organisational diversity by recognising the valuable contributions of neurodivergent individuals.

We at Test Partnership have extensive experience, knowledge, and technical expertise regarding neurodivergence and psychometric testing in the workplace. We ensure that our clients' neurodiversity goals are made a top priority, and share any and all information available to us with our clients. Moreover, as a matter of principle, we strive to remove unnecessary barriers to success for all people, giving everyone a fair chance to thrive.

Test Partnership offers a broad range of assessments, including both cognitive and behavioural tests. This allows organisations to measure a wide range of psychological constructs, and thus choose the assessments that they feel support their neurodiversity objectives. Moreover, our platform is designed to be maximally compatible with accessibility software, native display changes, and third-party browser extensions to enable accommodations. This ensures that candidates are able to adjust their testing experience in line with how they prefer to access the internet more generally.

Test Partnership also offers a range of assessment tools which are uniquely fair and effective for neurodivergent candidates. Our gamified assessment suite nullifies many of the difficulties that neurodivergent candidates experience with cognitive assessments. Game mechanics allow test providers to reduce the reliance on blocks of text, making gamified assessments substantially fairer for candidates with dyslexia. Moreover, the quick, interesting, and engaging nature of gamified assessments is better for candidates with ADHD, helping to sustain attention for longer. Overall, gamified assessments are a powerful tool to support neurodiversity goals, and should be strongly considered by any employing organisation.

When it comes to neurodiversity, organisations very often struggle to see the trees through the forest. They avoid introducing new assessments into the recruitment process in fear of harming neurodiversity goals, while simultaneously relying exclusively on assessments (i.e. interviews) which are uniquely harmful to their goals. Instead, organisations must take a clear, unbiased look at the research in this field, and make adjustments to their selection process which actually support their objectives. Psychometric assessments are highly useful in this regard, as they are particularly easy to provide adjustments for. This allows you to diversify your selection process away from just relying on interviews, reducing the negative impact that they have on selection outcomes.

For more information on how Test Partnership could support your neurodiversity aims and remove bias from your selection processes, feel free to book a call with us to discuss your needs.