Candidate Accommodations

Candidate accommodations

Assessing candidates with disabilities may require deviations from standardized procedures to remove construct-irrelevant barriers so a candidate can show their true standing on the job-relevant construct. The goal is to minimize the impact of a disability that is not part of the construct being assessed (e.g., a motor impairment depressing a cognitive ability score). This applies throughout selection and intersects fairness-and-bias-analysis (equitable treatment and access to the construct).

The Principles address psychological method, not the law. Accommodation obligations are governed by statute and case law (e.g., the ADA in the U.S.). Coordinate with qualified counsel.

Accommodation vs. modification — the pivotal distinction

• Accommodation — a change to environment, medium, or timing that does not alter the construct measured (e.g., high desks, Braille, text reader, adjusted time limit). Scores remain comparable to standard administration.
• Modification — a change that alters the construct (adaptations to test content are rare in employment and often change what's measured). When a test is modified so it no longer measures the same construct, its scores can no longer be directly compared to standard scores — though they may still yield useful information about the candidate's skills (dyscalculia + calculator example).

Professional judgment is required to choose accommodations with the least negative impact on the validity of the inferences. Empirical research on the effect of specific accommodations is usually lacking, so few cases support local study.

Process

1. Dialog with the candidate about possible accommodations. The appropriate accommodation depends on the facts of the individual's situation.
2. Decide accommodate / modify / waive / use other information. Sometimes the construct cannot be assessed without modifying it; sometimes the disability doesn't affect performance on the procedure and no accommodation is needed. Consider components of a battery separately. Users may choose to alter the procedure, develop an altered form, waive it and use other job-related KSAO information — but weigh the standardization, fairness, and job-relevance tradeoffs of those latter choices.
3. Preserve comparability where possible. Retain standardized administration features to the extent feasible to maximize score comparability. Pre-specified, commonly used accommodations that are irrelevant to score interpretation (e.g., adjusting table height) may be delegated to administrators.
4. Standardize the accommodation process. Document rules for eligibility, how candidates request accommodation, and how requests are evaluated; monitor implementation. Inform test takers of the process and the confidentiality provisions regarding their disability status.
5. Develop & validate altered forms following the Principles to the extent possible. Pilot test when feasible (at minimum to confirm the altered procedure runs smoothly). Practical limits (small samples) restrict statistical equating, reliability, and validity estimation — pursue them whenever possible.
6. Score handling & documentation. Document the changes made and the psychometric characteristics of accommodated/modified procedures; when volume permits, summarize performance of candidates with disabilities on accommodated/modified and original forms. Legal considerations may prohibit telling decision-makers whether a score was earned under accommodation and its nature — but users may flag accommodated scores for special handling in data analysis. If a test is modified so the construct changes, indicate the deviation on score reports and discuss how it may affect results/interpretation, to the extent permitted by law.

Keep selection procedures in their lane

Procedures used with candidates with disabilities should resemble as closely as possible those used for other candidates. Selection procedures are for making selection decisions, not for assessing the existence or extent of a candidate's disability — adding a procedure designed to detect disability is inappropriate as a selection tool and unlawful in many situations.

Linguistic and cultural background

• Determine the language requirements of the job to decide which language(s) the procedure is offered in; creating/maintaining a diverse workforce is usually an organizational goal.
• Ensure content and reading level are appropriate and equivalent across language forms (via translation/adaptation and relevant psychometric/statistical comparisons between groups). Inform test takers of linguistic options when appropriate.
• Cultural background can also introduce construct-irrelevant barriers; review test content and format to minimize them while keeping the procedure consistent with the requirements of the job. (DIF analysis is particularly useful in cross-cultural/linguistically different settings — see fairness-and-bias-analysis.)

Pitfalls

• Conflating accommodation (same construct) with modification (different construct) and then comparing scores as if equivalent.
• Using a selection procedure to gauge a disability.
• Skipping the individualized candidate dialog / applying a rigid one-size rule.
• Disclosing accommodation status to decision-makers where law forbids it.
• Treating a translated form as equivalent without adaptation and psychometric comparison.

Checklist

• Construct-irrelevant barrier identified; accommodation chosen to least harm validity
• Accommodation vs. modification classified; comparability implications stated
• Individualized candidate dialog held; battery components considered separately
• Eligibility/request/evaluation process standardized; confidentiality assured
• Altered forms piloted; reliability/validity pursued where feasible
• Score handling documented; legal limits on disclosure respected; deviations flagged on reports
• Procedure not used to assess disability
• Language forms equivalent (content, reading level) via translation/adaptation + comparison

See also

fairness-and-bias-analysis (equitable treatment, access, DIF) · administration-documentation (nonstandard administrations, request process) · validation-planning

Source: Principles (5th ed., 2018), "Operational Considerations → Assessing Candidates With Disabilities and Candidate Linguistic and Cultural Background."