In recent years, the concept of neurodiversity has shifted from the periphery to a central concern for inclusive employment practices. No longer viewed solely through a lens of disability, neurodiversity is increasingly recognized as a form of cognitive diversity, a natural and valuable variation in how people think, learn, and engage with the world.
While we have dealt with the broader topic of inclusivity, disability and assessments before (click here for our comprehensive whitepaper on the subject), this article focuses on the latest thinking and professional standards that inform how to better assess neurodiverse candidates in selection and development assessment projects.
Understanding neurodiversity
Neurodiversity refers to the natural variation in cognitive functioning among individuals, encompassing conditions such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Attention Deficit Disorder (with or without Hyperactivity), dyslexia, and others.
Neurodiversity is widely used as an umbrella term encompassing a range of neurodevelopmental and cognitive conditions, typically lifelong, that shape how individuals perceive and process information. Many of these conditions can present challenges in conventional settings, especially when norms are based on neurotypical assumptions, but they are also associated with unique strengths that can offer competitive advantages in the workplace when appropriately supported.
The most commonly recognized forms of neurodivergence include:
- Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Autism is a developmental condition characterized by differences in social communication, sensory processing, and behavior. Autistic candidates may excel in logical reasoning, pattern recognition, detail orientation, and deep focus: Qualities that can be valuable in technical, analytical, or research-driven roles. However, they may struggle with unstructured social situations, figurative language, or sudden changes in routine. Some experience sensory sensitivities (e.g. to light, sound, or textures) that may make standard workplaces or assessments difficult without accommodations.
- Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). ADHD involves differences in attention regulation, impulse control, and executive functioning. Individuals with ADHD are often creative, energetic, and quick-thinking but they may find it difficult to maintain sustained focus during monotonous tasks, adhere to rigid schedules, or manage detail-heavy processes without support systems in place. In assessment contexts, ADHD can affect test performance due to inconsistent concentration, increased distractibility, or a tendency toward impulsive responses.
- Dyslexia and other learning difficulties. Dyslexia primarily affects reading and language processing, while dyscalculia impacts numerical understanding. Dyspraxia affects coordination and planning of movement. These conditions are not indicators of impaired cognitive functioning. Indeed, individuals with learning differences may often demonstrate exceptional visual reasoning, problem-solving, and verbal abilities when their specific conditions are taken into consideration during testing.
Other forms of neurodivergence include Tourette Syndrome, characterized by involuntary motor or vocal tics, and sensory processing disorders, which affect how individuals perceive and respond to sensory stimuli. These conditions can affect communication and attention in ways that are easily misunderstood or misjudged in high-stakes assessments.
It’s also worth noting that neurodivergent conditions often co-occur. For example, many people with autism also have ADHD, anxiety, or learning differences.
Why inclusive assessment practices matter
Legal compliance. In South Africa, the Employment Equity Act is unambiguous: psychological assessments must be scientifically validated, reliable, fair across population groups, and free from bias. This framework aligns closely with international standards set by SIOP, the BPS, and the APA. All of which stress that reasonable accommodations should be provided to ensure assessments reflect ability and not disability.
SIOP’s Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures (2018) explicitly recommend modifying administration procedures to support candidates with disabilities, so long as the modifications do not invalidate the assessment’s core purpose.
The APA’s 2022 guidelines similarly encourage a shift away from deficit-based thinking, urging psychologists to adopt strength-oriented, context-sensitive approaches.
Accurate measurement. For neurodivergent individuals, some testing situations may represent construct-irrelevant barriers. A candidate with dyslexia, for instance, may struggle with fast reading but excel at spatial reasoning. An autistic candidate may not make eye contact in an interview but may demonstrate exceptional attention to detail and reliability. A person with ADHD may be disadvantaged by time-pressured tests but thrive in real-world, multitask-heavy environments.
Inclusive assessment should therefore not lower standards but instead remove artificial hurdles that obscure a candidate’s actual job-relevant performance.
Practical implications for assessing neurodivergent candidates
Time and processing differences
One of the most common pitfalls is the use of strictly timed assessments. Many neurodivergent individuals, especially those with ADHD and dyslexia, process information at a different pace. In a high-pressure timed test, this difference can skew results, penalizing candidates who need more time to read or think but could otherwise solve problems effectively. Research supports the use of time accommodations (e.g. 25–50% extra time) as a reasonable, non-advantageous adjustment.
Instructions, clarity, and testing environment
For candidates with ASD or processing differences, ambiguity and unpredictability in assessments can increase anxiety and reduce performance.
A simple step such as sharing practice materials or sample questions in advance can provide clarity and reduce cognitive load. Likewise, ensuring that the physical or digital testing environment is calm, quiet, and free of sensory hazards (e.g. harsh lighting or sudden noises) can make a significant difference. Of course, such accommodations will benefit neurotypical candidates as well.
Interviews and social judgments
Interviews, whether unstructured or competency-based, may bias against neurodiverse candidates. The social nuances of small talk, body language, and improvisational rapport are exactly where autistic or anxious individuals may differ from the norm: Not because they lack social intelligence, but because they express themselves differently.
It is best practice to avoid scoring based on eye contact, body language, or fluency, unless such attributes are clearly linked to essential job functions.
In some cases, organizations might consider using alternative interview formats such as written responses, one-on-one interviews rather than panels, or task-based work sampling to better capture a neurodiverse candidate’s abilities.
Important caveats
While the theoretical case for inclusive assessment is strong, the practical question remains: how can assessment professionals implement these principles consistently?
Before moving on to practicalities, several important caveats need to be mentioned:
The problem of inherent job requirements and accommodation. While accommodating candidates who are neurodivergent is possible, the possible interactions between the person’s divergence and the job’s inherent requirements should be carefully considered.
In cases where the inherent job requirement makes employing neurodivergent individuals impossible, accommodation would not be possible or desirable.
For instance, in a job where sustained concentration is a central, inherent and critical requirement, conditions that affect such abilities cannot be sensibly accommodated for. The reason being that it is exactly such abilities that are required and must therefore be accurately measured by psychometric testing.
The problem of disclosure. An additional caveat to consider is that many neurodivergent individuals are reluctant to disclose their conditions, and therefore never request accommodation when they undergo employment testing.
The reasons for nondisclosure are complex but well-founded. Many individuals fear being judged, misunderstood, or silently excluded from opportunities. Some have past experiences where disclosure led to subtle discrimination, while others worry about appearing “difficult.”
This creates a paradox: without disclosure, organizations may not offer accommodation, but without visible commitment to inclusion, individuals are unlikely to disclose.
To break this cycle, organizations must normalize and actively invite disclosure, not just passively allow for it.
This can include adding inclusive language to job adverts and assessment invitations (e.g., “We welcome neurodiversity and provide accommodations to support all candidates”), clearly outlining how to request adjustments, and reassuring candidates that requests will be treated confidentially and without prejudice.
From policy to practice
What are the practicalities of accommodating for neurodivergence?
First, it requires the correctpolicies. Organizations should have documented procedures for requesting and delivering accommodations not just for visible disabilities, but also for cognitive differences. These should be embedded in every stage of the assessment process, from selection assessments to those used for succession planning.
Second, it requires training. Interviewers, assessors, feedback providers, and line managers need education on neurodiversity. Structured rubrics, clear evaluation criteria, and awareness of individual context all help reduce the reliance on “assumptions about neurodiverse candidates that may bias the process..
Third, it calls for reflection on tools and procedures. Many psychometric assessments were designed without neurodiverse populations in mind. Organizations should review their test batteries for accessibility, evaluate how the assessment process and context may influence or bias against neurodiversity, and consult with specialists when revising or selecting the best assessment methods.
Final thoughts
Inclusive assessment depends on a culture that sees diversity as a source of strength rather than a deviation from the norm.
IO psychologists and other talent professionals are in a unique position to ensure that the organizations they serve benefit from casting as wide a net as possible for talent. By embracing inclusive design, ethical responsibility, and empirical guidance, they can ensure that talent assessments do what they are meant to do: fit the right people to the right jobs, accurately and fairly.
For more on this and other ways we can help with assessing diverse candidates, connect with us at info@tts-talent.com.
Sources and suggested reading
SIOP (2018). Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures.
American Psychological Association (2023). Guidelines for Assessment and Intervention with Persons with Disabilities. Praslova, L. (2025). “Fix the Mine, Don’t Blame the Canary: Neurodiversity at Work.” SIOP News (April 29).
Praslova, L. (2025). “Fix the Mine, Don’t Blame the Canary: Neurodiversity at Work.” SIOP News (April 29).