Examining the Use of Game-Based Assessments for Hiring Autistic Job Seekers

Willis, Caroline; Powell-Rudy, Tracy; Colley, Kelsie; Prasad, Joshua J.

doi:10.3390/jintelligence9040053

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Barriers to the employment of autistic adults also include hiring processes that define talent too narrowly and the use of unstructured job interviews which may be biased against people with atypical manners of interaction (Willis et al, 2021; Wilson & Bishop, 2021). Even if they get hired, negative attitudes or stereotypes about customizing standardized job roles or tailoring working conditions to accommodate special needs are other challenges to overcome (Solomon, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational benefits of neurodiversity: Preliminary findings on autism and the bystander effect

Hartman,

Farahani,

Moore

et al. 2023

Autism Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the bystander effect is one of the most important findings in the psychological literature, researchers have not explored whether autistic individuals are prone to the bystander effect. The present research examines whether autistic employees are more likely to report issues or concerns in an organization's systems and practices that are inefficient or dysfunctional. By bringing attention to these issues, autistic employees may foster opportunities to improve organizational performance, leading to the development of a more adaptive, high performing, and ethical culture. Thirty‐three autistic employees and 34 nonautistic employees completed an online survey to determine whether employees on the autism spectrum (1) are more likely to report they would voice concerns about organizational dysfunctions, (2) are less likely to report they were influenced by the number of other witnesses to the dysfunction, (3) if they do not voice concerns, are more likely to acknowledge the influence of other people on the decision, (4) are less likely to formulate “elaborate rationales” for their decisions to intervene or not, and (5) whether any differences between autistic and nonautistic employees with regards to the first two hypotheses, intervention likelihood and degree of influence, are moderated by individual differences in camouflaging. Results indicate that autistic employees may be less susceptible to the bystander effect than nonautistic employees. As a result, autistic employees may contribute to improvements in organizational performance because they are more likely to identify and report inefficient processes and dysfunctional practices when they witness them. These preliminary findings suggesting potential benefits of neurodiversity in the workplace are promising. However, further research is required.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational benefits of neurodiversity: Preliminary findings on autism and the bystander effect

Hartman,

Farahani,

Moore

et al. 2023

Autism Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More recently, there has been recognition that DEI efforts should extend to groups beyond these demographic categories, such as individuals with disabilities and the neurodivergent community. As organizations build out diversity initiatives, navigating the balance between the growing social push for inclusion and the real challenges of accommodating neurodivergent workers across the talent lifecycle is coming into focus for research and applied work (Willis et al, 2021). Beyond reputational benefits, organizations across industries have pioneered a shift in the way they manage their workforces and have developed programs to attract and retain sources of untapped talent (Walkowiak, 2021).…”

Section: Neurodiversity: An Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Much of the research that has been conducted is limited by small sample sizes or a narrow focus on one or two distinct neurodivergent conditions, commonly autism. A recent study (Willis et al, 2021) compared the test scores of autistic and nonautistic individuals on cognitive ability assessments measuring mathematical, memorization, and visuospatial skills in a game-based format. The study found no significant differences in performance between the two groups, suggesting that the assessments are unlikely to create disparities in outcomes (Willis et al, 2021).…”

Section: Neurodiversity: An Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive ability: A promising option for assessing neurodiverse talent.

Camden,

Allen,

Specht

et al. 2024

Consulting Psychology Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on neurodiversity is sparse, and from an academic point of view, the current research suffers from poor and conflicting definitions and offers little guidance on practical support in organizational contexts (Doyle, 2020). Therefore, practitioners are left with little empirical research to help guide best practices for talent assessment. This study aims to address this gap between science and practice by analyzing how neurodivergent individuals perform on selection assessments measuring multiple constructs of cognitive ability and in multiple test formats when compared to neurotypical participants. To do this, the scores of nearly 500,000 participants across seven different practice versions of widely used cognitive ability assessments were analyzed. Results show that neurodivergent participants are generally able to achieve similar scores in a similar amount of time as neurotypical participants, providing preliminary evidence that cognitive ability assessments show promise for assessing the neurodiverse talent pool in a way that provides a fair and inclusive opportunity for all candidates to demonstrate their job-related abilities. Our findings also provide valuable insight into how assessment methods can impact a neurodivergent individual's performance dependent on their self-disclosed neurodivergent category. We conclude by discussing the practical implications of these results, including how they may affect the appropriateness of traditional accommodations such as providing additional time to candidates on assessments.William L. Camden https://orcid.org/0009-0000-0965-2222 All authors of the article are or were employed by SHL, the owner of copyrighted test content and patented assessment technology referenced in the article. None of the authors own the tests or technologies referenced or the associated copyright, nor do they receive any royalties from the sale of these (or other) SHL products.Our positionality statements follow: All members of the research team are or were employed by a global talent assessment provider embarking on a research program to ensure fair and inclusive assessments for all candidates. The research team includes representation from the neurodivergent community, which provides a unique perspective to contribute to the study design, analyses, and interpretation of results.William L. Camden played a lead role in data curation, formal analysis, and writing-original draft, a supporting role in project administration and visualization, and an equal role in conceptualization, investigation, supervision, validation, and writing-review and editing. Kristin S. Allen played a lead role in project administration and validation, a supporting role in data curation, formal analysis, investigation, and writing-original draft, and an equal continued 20

show abstract

“…Technology enabled and game-based assessment are quickly gaining popularity. These types of assessments not only invite the opportunity to make assessment more engaging for different groups but also introduce a bevy of psychometric concerns, not the least of which is differential functioning by neurodiversity status (Willis et al, 2021). Forced choice items represent another item format that may prove challenging for neuroatypical applicants.…”

Section: Assessment Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%