There is a growing and important conversation happening around neurodivergence in hiring.

Most organisations want fair, inclusive, and respectful processes ones that give every candidate a genuine opportunity to perform at their best. When it comes to psychometric assessment, however, many are finding themselves in genuinely uncertain territory.

Questions around definitions, measurement, and accommodations particularly around timed testing are creating real confusion. In some cases, well-meaning decisions are quietly introducing new risks around fairness, comparability, and decision quality.

Good intent is clear. Good practice is less so.

This article isn’t about taking sides. It’s about bringing some clarity to a space that currently lacks it.

Challenge #1: We Don’t Have a Single Definition

“Neurodivergence” is widely used, but not consistently defined.

It’s generally understood as a broad umbrella term covering neurological differences autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and others. But there’s no universally agreed definition, and no settled list of what’s included.

More importantly, it is not a single, uniform experience.

Two candidates who both identify as neurodivergent may present very differently in an assessment context. Treating neurodivergence as one category risks over-simplification and, ultimately, poor decision-making.

Challenge #2: There Is No Single Measurement Framework

Psychometric assessments are designed to measure specific constructs verbal reasoning, numerical reasoning, behavioural tendencies, and so on.

Neurodivergence cuts across these constructs in different ways for different individuals. There is no “neurodivergence scale.” There is no unified method for adjusting assessments accordingly.

We are, in practice, attempting to apply consistent assessment processes to something that is inherently variable.

Where Practice Is Struggling: The Unlimited Time Debate

One of the most common responses to this challenge is the call to provide unlimited time on timed assessments.

The intent is understandable reduce pressure, remove disadvantage, allow candidates to demonstrate their true capability.

But in practice, this raises questions that organisations aren’t always asking:

• Are results still comparable to established norms?
• Are we still measuring the same construct or something different?
• Are we removing a genuine barrier, or introducing an unintended advantage?
• Is speed actually relevant to the role being assessed?

In some cases, extended time is entirely appropriate. In others, unlimited time fundamentally changes the nature of what is being assessed.

This is where well-intentioned decisions can begin to undermine both fairness and validity.

The Most Overlooked Step: Understanding the Candidate’s Actual Experience

The biggest gap in current practice isn’t a lack of accommodation.

It’s a lack of understanding.

Too often, organisations move straight to solutions without clearly identifying the problem they’re trying to solve. Neurodivergence doesn’t equal one type of challenge. Candidates may experience:

• Differences in processing speed
• Variability in attention and sustained focus
• Sensory or cognitive overload
• Anxiety triggered by formal testing conditions
• Difficulty with ambiguous or complex instructions

Critically, these challenges are not consistent across individuals. The risk is assumption. When we assume the challenge, we frequently solve the wrong problem.

A more effective approach focuses on functional impact:

• What specifically is difficult in this assessment context?
• Why is it difficult?
• Is that difficulty relevant to the role or not?

If the difficulty reflects a core requirement of the role, it should not be removed.

If it is irrelevant to job performance, it should be.

Reframing the Principle: Fairness Is Not Sameness

Fairness doesn’t mean treating everyone the same.

But it also doesn’t mean removing all structure.

The goal isn’t to make assessments easier or harder. It’s to make them more relevant.

What Good Practice Actually Looks Like

A structured, role-led approach is far more effective than blanket accommodation policies. Here’s what that looks like in practice:

1. Start with the role

What capabilities genuinely matter for performance in this specific position? Not what is traditionally assessed what is actually required.

2. Understand the candidate’s functional challenge

What is the actual barrier? Avoid assumptions. Engage with the candidate, where appropriate, to understand the specific nature of the difficulty.

3. Distinguish barrier from job-relevant demand

What should be accommodated and what should remain part of the assessment? These are distinct questions that require distinct answers.

4. Apply targeted adjustments

Examples might include:

• Additional (but not unlimited) time where speed isn’t role-relevant
• Practice materials to reduce novelty-driven anxiety
• Clearer or restructured instructions
• Alternative formats where genuinely appropriate

5. Protect validity and comparability

After any adjustment, ask: are we still measuring what we intend to measure? If the answer is unclear, the adjustment may have gone too far.

6. Interpret results in context alongside other data sources

Psychometric results should sit alongside structured interviews, work samples, experience, and reference insights particularly where assessment conditions have been modified.

What Organisations Should Avoid

• Blanket accommodation policies such as automatic unlimited time for all neurodivergent candidates
• Ignoring accommodation needs entirely in the name of consistency
• Treating neurodivergence as a single, uniform category
• Over-interpreting scores from assessments where conditions have been significantly modified
• Over-reliance on psychometrics in isolation, without triangulating other sources of evidence

A More Mature Way Forward

This is an evolving space. There’s no perfect model and the evidence base continues to develop.

But there is a clear direction of travel.

Good practice isn’t about choosing between fairness and rigour. It’s about having the capability to deliver both simultaneously, and consistently.

That requires:

• Clear thinking, not assumptions
• Role-led decision making, not default policies
• Targeted adjustments, not blanket rules
• Multiple sources of evidence, not single data points
• Professional judgement, supported not replaced by data

The best hiring decisions aren’t driven by a single data point. They’re built on a balanced view across multiple, role-relevant sources of evidence.

The future of psychometric assessment isn’t about removing standards.

It’s about applying them more intelligently.

What’s your experience navigating psychometric assessment for neurodivergent candidates? I’d be interested to hear what approaches others are finding effective or where the real gaps still are.