Psychometrics and disability
Technology has revolutionised the workplace, including opening up opportunities for disabled employees to take their place in mainstream employment. Yet many organisations, despite being keen to recruit more diversely for skills and experience, remain uncertain how best to tap this potentially resourceful pool of labour. For many people with disabilities, the recruitment and job selection process can still be daunting. Companies, too, proceed with considerable caution for fear of falling foul of disability discrimination laws.

This is particularly true of organisations using occupational testing for recruitment, assessment and selection. People with disabilities now make up an estimated 16 per cent of the working age population. With an ever-present hunger for talent as well as an increasing awareness of legal obligations, employers are eager to encourage disabled applicants and are seeking an understanding of how to ensure those selected have the right aptitudes for the job Increasingly they are turning to psychometrics. One of the clear advantages of occupational testing is that it creates a level playing field for all candidates - an objective standard against which to set other, potentially more subjectively influenced, elements of the selection process. But does this still hold true for disabled candidates? Can psychometrics be used effectively with applicants with visual, motor and learning difficulties, without disadvantaging them in comparison to others? Do such tests offer an opportunity for assessing the potential of such candidates or do they merely create an additional barrier to employment?

Disability Discrimination Act (1995)
“Testing people with disabilities is not substantially different from good practice in testing in general,” chartered psychologist Ian Newcombe, Director of Product Development at Kenexa, points out. For most test users, this will come as reassurance. “People are naturally very nervous about it,” Newcombe says, explaining that what testers need to do is ensure that appropriate adjustments are made for each individual. “There is a lot of misunderstanding about what the Disability Discrimination Act means in terms of testing people with disabilities. The important thing is to educate test users and show them that adjustments are not difficult and that they are ethically bound to make them,” he adds. “It is important to get into the mindset of what disabled people can do, not focus on what they can’t do.” Anxiety among testers is experienced in two ways, both of which can be overcome. One is that organisations may think candidates with disabilities can’t do the job or can’t do tests, and so they won’t test them alongside other candidates. Alternatively they may look for an off-the-shelf product suitable for, say, dyslexia. Psychologists and test publishers alike insist that this is grasping the wrong end of the stick in terms of gaining an accurate view of the candidate’s potential and could prove problematic in the face of the law.

“Organisations are concerned about running foul of the DDA (Disability Discrimination Act, 1995) so they tend to exempt disabled candidates from assessment,” says Lyn Dale, occupational psychologist at the Psychometric Centre, Cambridge. In fact, she asserts, “with reasonable adjustments testing can be meaningful. It is discrimination in a way not to allow a disabled person to do testing, as it allows another avenue for them to shine in the whole assessment process. Not testing narrows their opportunities to prove their suitability for the job.”

Norming tests
Test publishers and psychometricians underline the importance of using the same norm group for scoring tests with disabled candidates as with the general population. It would be almost impossible to produce a test normed on disabled populations when the range of disabilities people can present with is so vast and the level of impairment different for each individual. What is more, they argue, testing in this way would focus on the disability rather than testing the candidate for their real capabilities. “The best norms to use are ones that reflect the job role, for example comparing with the norm for accountants for an accounting role,” says Dale. “It’s a fairer comparison.” Test publishers do recommend using a wider standard margin of error (SEM) for marking - 2 SEMs rather than 1 SEM in most cases - particularly when one of the adjustments made for disabled candidates is an increased time allowance.

Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
The public sector is leading the way in this area, according to Rob Feltham of Cubiks. Transport for London has adopted WAI, a web accessibility developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), a joint US-French-Japanese technology research group, that sets standards for websites in terms of their ease of access for disabled users, particularly those with visual impairments. Feltham also explains that using xhtml rather than flash or other programme languages in test design enables screenreaders used by visually impaired people to read online material. TfL uses the highest WAI standard for all its web recruitment materials, applications, and online tests, such as the ‘situational judgement tool’ designed for them by Cubiks, to ensure they are fully accessible. They also provide alternate formats such as large print, braille or audio.

“There is a huge number of talented graduates who have disabilities,” says Mel Williams, TfL’s Graduate Resourcing Manager. “Little is done by large graduate recruiters to be completely inclusive. We make that extra effort to give them the opportunity to apply. Whether it is physical disability, visual impairment or dyslexia, these are addressed right through the recruitment process.”

‘Reasonable adjustments’
The term ‘reasonable adjustments’ is the stumbling block for many tackling the issue of psychometric testing with disabled candidates. Testing experts recommend four important elements to include in your approach to what is ‘reasonable’. The initial step is to consider your selection and assessment policies and processes, including training, from start to finish, as TfL have done. Are the skill and ability criteria being used only those essential for performing the job? Is all your recruitment information accessible to potential applicants with disabilities? Have you picked psychometric tests specific to the aptitudes you need to select for? Are your testers trained and aware? Are you using cut-off points in test results that could disadvantage people with disabilities? Have you provided a contact person for candidates? And, importantly, have you communicated your desire to attract applicants with disabilities into your organisation? The second, and most essential, is to consult the applicant themselves as to what adjustments they are likely to need, both to the test and to the administrative process. “Ultimately the best people to advise on any adjustments are the disabled people themselves,” says Dale. This can involve asking for examples of previous adjustments made - for instance in time - checking for access, travel and other mobility requirements, asking about interpreters or signers for deaf candidates, about equipment used by visually or motor impaired candidates, including lighting, font sizes or colours, and any other circumstances or conditions that would enable them to perform at their best. One-to-one testing may be appropriate too, especially if an assistant, interpreter or amanuensis is needed.

A prior visit to the testing venue, plus practice or sample tests may be helpful too, as the more information a candidate has, the better they will be able to judge what adjustments might be needed. Take care too, with the introduction and administration process at the test. “All candidates need to be put at ease on the day but disabled candidates are more likely to have faced discrimination in applying for jobs and this may add to their anxiety in taking the test,” Dale advises.

Thirdly, when contacted by candidates with specific conditions, as well as discussing needs with the individual concerned, consult the specialist support organisation for that condition. There are organisations for most disabling conditions that will have useful advice to give employers and testers including suggestions for possible adjustments and issues to be aware of when dealing with that particular impairment. Many, too, have specific guidance for both testers and candidates, for example the RNIB (see further information).

Finally, when you are clear about the kinds of adjustments that will be required, consult the test publisher for their advice. They will be able to tell you whether the particular test is suitable for that kind of adaptation and whether the results are likely to be comparable with the general candidate pool, or if different criteria need to be defined. Some aptitude tests, for example, are time-dependent and don’t adapt well to extension. Others, for example personality tests, are more suitable for giving extra time, but issues may arise regarding candidates with mental health problems. Test publishers are best placed to advise on scoring, administration changes and suitability in different formats. For example, presenting a test in braille may alter the way it is understood as well as the time it takes and thus skew the results; similarly using an amanuensis for personality tests can alter a candidate’s chosen responses.

Time and resources
Clearly, all these consultations take time, and it is important to build enough time into the selection process to ensure that identifying needs and making adjustments can be completed before testing takes place. It can also prove resource intensive, and for this reason some testers advocate a separate testing session for disabled candidates, so that resources can be pooled. However as Aine Gray, occupational psychologist for the Irish Civil Service’s recruitment organisation - underlines, “the payoff in terms of greater diversity and benefit from having disabled people on your staff who can give insight into the needs of customers with disabilities is great.” The organisation has recently run a recruitment campaign directed specifically at people with disabilities, using a battery of psychometric tests to establish baseline skills and suitability for Civil Service roles. Ireland has stringent disability inclusiveness legislation and quotas, and the Civil Service is currently working with test producer Kenexa on a campaign using web-based testing from home.

Online testing
Some further comments need to be made about the use of psychometric tests online. At first glance, such web-based testing might appear an excellent solution to overcome many of the difficulties disabled candidates face. This may be the case for those with mobility impairments or where taking tests at one sitting may be difficult. However, the web should be used with caution. Firstly, people with particular visual impairments or dyslexia may find reading screens, or accessing material with a screenreader, very difficult. While colour, font and size adjustments are more easily made online than on paper, additional design elements may prove harder or impossible to adjust. Extra time on automatically timed tests may also prove problematic and auto-scoring facilities may not allow sufficient margins of error.

Voice synthesisers may be useful for some, but many will prefer face-to-face testing, possibly with a reader. In addition, audio elements are unsuitable for deaf candidates, while many browsers do not support the software or commands used by candidates who cannot use a mouse or keyboard effectively due to physical impairment. Lyn Dale points to a second important factor, which is that controlling the candidate experience remotely, particularly with aptitude testing, is hard and can also affect disabled candidates negatively.

An individual approach
Finally, testers need to remember that every individual is unique when it comes to making adjustments, and be prepared to consider a range of measures, bearing in mind that some candidates may be affected by multiple conditions, or in addition experience chronic pain, anxiety, depression and fatigue, all of which may affect the outcome of their test. Hard and fast rules are not the right approach.

Testers should be aware, too, as the Employers’ Forum on Disability points out, that group-based assessment exercises or verbal reasoning tests can give rise to difficulties for example to visually impaired, deaf or speech impaired people, especially when the rest of the group is not used to working with disabled colleagues. In addition, aptitude tests may not take into account the ways disabled staff can adapt in order to perform tasks.

As Ian Newcombe indicates, disabled people’s experience is not standardised and doesn’t fit well with a standardised assessment process: flexibility and an individual approach is the key. “It’s not rocket science,” he assures; the positive side to occupational testing is that it offers a less biased environment than interviews alone for individuals to demonstrate their capacity. “Bear in mind the reason they have applied is because they think they can do the job, so don’t be judge and jury,” he advises.

Best practice tips for testing disabled candidates

• Make sure you are testing for what candidates can do, not what they can’t.
• Speak to the candidate to find out what adjustments they need. Ask for special needs
• In your letter inviting applicants to the test and make sure you follow up individually with candidates who respond.
• Find out exactly what equipment candidates use and either make it possible for them to use their own or try to replicate it exactly.
• Face-to-face situations, don’t be embarrassed to offer assistance, but always
• Wait until it is accepted before acting.
• Make sure you introduce people in the room if working with visually impaired candidates.
• With hearing impaired people who lip read or use a signer, ensure people speak one at a time and facing the individual concerned.
• Always speak directly to the candidate, not to theirassistant or interpreter.
• Use the advice of disability organisations and test publishers. Much of this is available on the web, including lots of useful contacts (see further information).
• Remember only reasonable adjustments need to be made, as the aim is to show that the candidate can do the job on offer.
• Integrate testing into a broader process, making sure you have examined your recruitment materials, websites and assessment practices for accessibility and awareness of disability factors.
• Don’t be afraid to use psychometrics with disabled candidates. Any disadvantage for them is much more likely to arise from the way the test is presented and used – aspects you can control - than from the test itself.
• Monitor your results to ensure no group is being disadvantaged.

Further Information:

http://www.w3.org/WAI
Information on the Web Accessibility Initiative

www.rnib.org/xpedio/groups/public/documents/publicwebsite/public_emppsych.hcsp
The RNIB’s guidance for employers. Guidance for candidates is also available on the RNIB’s site.

http://www.kenexa.com
Test publisher Kenexa’s site with extensive guidelines on testing and a list of useful disability organisation contacts.

www.intest.com/itc_projects.htm
The International Test Commission guidelines on psychnometric testing.

www.pow-bps.com
Specialist occupational testing site from the British Psychological Society.

www.employers-forum.co.uk
Site for the Employers’ Forum on Disability.

www.blindinbusiness.org.uk
Site for the Employers’ Forum on Disability. Offers assistance to employers on all issues to do with visual disability and employment.

www.psychtesting.org.uk
Advice for test takers and test users from the BPS plus links to additional sites including a variety of guidelines on testing.

www.cubiks.com
Advice from test publisher that contains useful advice and addresses for disability organisations, plus extensive guidelines.

www.testpublishers.org
The US test publishers organisation.


Rebecca Johnson is a freelance journalist and writer on business, management, carrers, workplace and women’s issues. She was formerly Features Editor on People Management and a Media Relations Manager at Campaign for earning.