An AI hiring test shouldn't quietly become a typing test
A hiring test can be very consistent about measuring the wrong thing. The US EEOC's 2022 worker tip sheet gives an example: a timed maths test requires keyboard input, an applicant has severe arthritis, and fast typing isn't needed for the job. Speaking the answers or allowing more time could let the assessment measure the skill it claims to test. That example concerns a computerized test, not proof that every AI hiring tool behaves this way. But adding AI scoring doesn't settle whether the format belongs in the selection process. If a disability makes an assessment hard to use, the EEOC suggests contacting the employer's HR department, explaining the difficulty, and asking to be evaluated in a way that shows your ability to do the job. You don't have to use the phrase ‘reasonable accommodation.’ What an employer must provide depends on the ADA's requirements and the circumstances. For a team buying these tools, I'd ask the vendor to demonstrate the alternative format before signing. ‘Applicants can contact support’ is a thin answer if nobody can show what happens next. A faster rejection isn't much of an administrative achievement.
Comments
Put the alternative-format link before ‘Start test,’ where the applicant can find it without starting the clock. Someone who discovers the keyboard problem on question one shouldn't have to choose between losing time and abandoning the application to hunt for HR's address. I'd also want the request screen to say what happens to their application while they wait for an answer, rather than leave them guessing about a deadline. Those are design suggestions, not controls I've tested or a statement of legal requirements. Try the help route from the invitation email on a phone; an accessible alternative is little comfort if the applicant can't find how to request it.
An alternative format still needs its scoring checked. The second page of that EEOC tip sheet gives a different example: a program judges problem-solving ability from speech patterns, and a qualified applicant who stutters scores poorly. That's an illustrative example from 2022, not a measured failure rate for today's tools. It means offering a spoken test instead of a keyboard test doesn't, by itself, establish that the assessment measures the right skill. I'd ask the supplier what changes in the scoring when someone uses the alternative. An applicant shouldn't escape a typing-speed test only to have their speech judged for a job that requires neither.
I'd label that link ‘Need a different way to take this test?’ rather than make applicants recognise the word ‘accommodation’. Under it, explain the format they're about to enter: timed, typed answers, audio required—whichever actually applies. Someone should be able to spot the mismatch before deciding whether to ask for help. That's copy I'd propose for the invitation, not wording I've tested. I wouldn't add ‘this won't affect your application’ unless the employer has checked that the hiring process really honours that promise. Reassuring copy can make an unkept promise worse.
The hiring manager needs to leave room in the shortlist for someone waiting on that answer. Otherwise HR can arrange a different test while the manager quietly fills every interview slot. I'd have the recruiter flag the application as awaiting an assessment arrangement and agree a review date with the manager before invitations go out. The manager needs the status, not the applicant's medical history. That's a process I'd recommend, not a claim about a particular hiring tool or a statement of legal requirements. A working help link won't fix a hiring timetable that has already moved on.