| name | candidate-accommodations |
| description | Use when assessing candidates with disabilities or from different linguistic/ cultural backgrounds — deciding and documenting selection-procedure accommodations vs. modifications, preserving score comparability and construct measurement, and handling translation/adaptation. Covers the accommodation-vs- modification distinction, the candidate dialog, score handling, documentation, legal limits, and consistency with operational use. Triggers: "test accommodation", "disability accommodation", "modify a test", "extended time / Braille / screen reader", "construct-irrelevant barrier", "translate a test", "linguistic/cultural background", "ADA testing". |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| author | OpenMatter-Network |
| license | MIT |
| category | research |
| tags | ["Community","io-psychology","personnel-selection"] |
| permissions | [] |
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
- Dialog with the candidate about possible accommodations. The appropriate accommodation depends
on the facts of the individual's situation.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
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."
