Making selection tests work better for disabled job applicants

• Published in: Industrial and organizational psychology 2024-09, Vol.17 (3), p.292-295
• Main Authors: Maneethai, Dustin, Johnson, Lars U.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Affirmative action; Americans with Disabilities Act 1990-US; Applicants; Bias; Commentaries; Design; Disability; Employees; Employment; Employment interviews; Handicapped accessibility; Job performance; Personality; Personnel selection
• ISSN: 1754-9426; 1754-9434
• DOI: 10.1017/iop.2024.20

[...]solely focusing on ratee main effects versus other sources of variance (i.e., design bias) lacks consideration of how perceptions of individual differences and issues of accessibility may adversely impact applicants in need of accommodations. 2 Specifically, performance-relevant variance of disabled job applicants who often face the same selection tests and batteries that able-bodied applicants face (Colella et al., 1998) may be muddled by lack of accessibility or rater biases (e.g., horn vs. halo effects). [...]these selection tests, although highly predictive (e.g., general mental ability; Schmidt & Hunter, 2004), may not fully capture the performance domain of disabled job applicants. The Americans with Disabilities Act and selection tests The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) states that employers are not allowed to discriminate against a job applicant or employee in a way that adversely impacts their employment opportunities based on the status of their disability (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2008). [...]the ADA also prevents organizations from using “standards, criteria, or methods of administration, which are not job-related and consistent with business necessity, and have the effect of discriminating on the basis on disability” (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2008). [...]within the US context, employers must consider the adverse impact of their selection instruments and systems on disabled applicants and provide reasonable accommodations in the selection process. (2018) found similar results and found that applicants who disclosed their physical disability and accentuated their disability in a positive light were evaluated more positively than those who engaged in other strategies, such as nondisclosure. [...]providing information on how to mitigate bias to disabled applicants may help reduce error variance attributable to rater effects.