How do neurodivergent candidates experience online psychometric assessments compared to their neurotypical peers?
This was the question driving our latest piece of research carried out by academics and industry experts in psychometrics. With online assessments now a staple of hiring and development processes, ensuring they are fair, inclusive, and accessible is critical for both employers and candidates.
The findings may surprise you. While there were concerns that neurodivergent candidates might face greater barriers, the research found far more similarities than differences. That doesn’t mean employers can sit back, though, it points instead to the importance of individualised support and thoughtful test design.
Why this research matters
Psychometric assessments are used widely in recruitment, from graduate schemes to senior hiring. They’re valued for their ability to provide objective insights into reasoning skills, personality, and workplace behaviours. But for neurodivergent candidates, such as those with conditions like ADHD, autism, or dyslexia, questions have long been raised about whether these tools truly provide a level playing field.
Until now, there’s been limited evidence exploring how different groups actually experience these assessments in practice, especially in their online format. This research addresses that ga
The research at a glance
The project combined three studies, each taking a different angle:
- Study 1 (quantitative, 314 participants): Compared test performance, time taken, ease of use, mood, and behaviours between neurodivergent and neurotypical individuals.
- Study 2 (qualitative, 23 participants): Used focus groups to explore first-hand experiences of completing online assessments, looking at barriers and support needs.
- Study 3 (mixed methods, 56 participants): Examined how design features of situational judgement tests (SJTs), such as question format and scenario length, shaped the candidate experience.
The sample included both neurodivergent and neurotypical candidates, with the most common neurodivergent conditions being ADHD/ADD and autism. A steering committee of neurodiversity specialists provided oversight throughout.
Key findings
1. Few performance differences between groups
Across cognitive reasoning and personality tests, performance was broadly similar. In fact, there were no differences in performance in relation to verbal and abstractive reasoning, and only very small differences in relation to numerical reasoning. In some cases, neurodivergent participants actually completed tests more quickly than neurotypical peers, for example in numerical and abstract reasoning. This challenges assumptions that all neurodivergent individuals necessarily need extra time.
2. Mood differences were more marked
Neurodivergent individuals tended to report lower mood both before and after taking assessments, even though the assessments themselves didn’t significantly worsen mood. This highlights the importance of recognising baseline differences in candidate experience, which may be amplified in high-stakes selection contexts.
3. Test design matters for everyone
Across groups, candidates raised similar concerns:
- Timed tests created stress and anxiety.
- Complex or ambiguous questions caused comprehension difficulties.
- Visual and platform features affected engagement.
- Practice materials and preparatory resources were seen as valuable.
While these themes weren’t unique to neurodivergent candidates, the research suggests that they may feel the effects more acutely, especially when faced with unclear or unnecessarily complex test design.
4. Preferences in Situational Judgement Tests (SJTs)
Candidates generally preferred shorter, contextualised scenarios. Response format preferences were mixed: some favoured “most/least” style questions, others preferred rating scales. Neurodivergent candidates broadly shared these views, though some groups (e.g., autistic and dyslexic participants) found highly hypothetical scenarios more demanding.
What this means for employers
For HR leaders, recruiters, and hiring managers, the takeaway is clear: psychometric tests are not inherently exclusionary. In fact, best practice design and administration already goes a long way toward inclusivity. However, there are important refinements and considerations:
- Don’t assume one-size-fits-all adjustments. Offering blanket accommodations (e.g., automatically giving 25% extra time) may not actually support neurodivergent candidates, and may even miss the point. Instead, ask candidates what they need and offer flexibility.
- Design with clarity and accessibility in mind. Reduce unnecessary complexity, avoid ambiguous wording, and ensure platforms are visually engaging without being distracting.
- Provide preparation and feedback. Access to practice tests, clear instructions, and post-assessment feedback helps all candidates feel supported, not just neurodivergent ones.
- Recognise the role of stress and context. This study took place in a low-stakes environment. In real selection processes, pressure is higher. Employers should consider how test design and communication can reduce anxiety.
Lessons learned from the research
While the findings are encouraging, the researchers emphasised several lessons for future work:
- Neurodivergence is complex. Many individuals reported multiple diagnoses, making it harder to neatly categorise groups. This reflects real life but complicates research comparisons.
- Sample size matters. Some conditions, such as dyslexia, were harder to recruit for and therefore under-represented in Study 1. Although Studies 2&3 improved on this, further work with larger samples is needed.
- Collaboration works. Having a steering committee of neurodiversity and psychometric experts enriched the research, improving recruitment and shaping study design, whilst keeping the needs of neurodivergent individuals at the forefront of everything we did.
What’s next?
The project doesn’t end here. The researchers plan to:
- Expand studies into high-stakes contexts (e.g., actual recruitment processes), where pressure and anxiety may affect outcomes more significantly.
- Investigate test time accommodations more rigorously, to replace arbitrary “extra time” rules with evidence-based guidelines.
- Deepen understanding of specific conditions, such as dyslexia, and how they interact with different types of assessments.
- Develop policy guidance for organisations, helping HR and talent teams apply these insights in practice.
These steps will ensure psychometrics continue to evolve as inclusive, evidence-based tools for assessing talent.
Final thoughts
The key takeaway, that neurodivergent and neurotypical candidates experience online psychometrics more similarly than differently, should be reassuring to employers. It suggests that well-designed assessments are not inherently biased against neurodivergent individuals.
But this doesn’t mean the job is done. Employers must still take responsibility for offering candidate-centred experiences, asking individuals what support they need, and ensuring assessments are as fair and clear as possible.
Ultimately, inclusivity in assessment isn’t about treating everyone the same. It’s about recognising differences, listening to candidates, and creating processes that allow all individuals to demonstrate their true abilities. That benefits not just neurodivergent candidates, but every organisation looking to hire the best talent.
As part of the Digital Futures at Work Research Centre (Digit), this work was supported by the UK Economic and Social Research Council [grant number ES/S012532/1], which is gratefully acknowledged.
