Employers want selection methods that predict performance and treat every candidate fairly. Situational judgement tests (SJTs) are often chosen for both reasons, but questions are rightly asked about how they work for disabled and neurodivergent candidates. This article looks at what the evidence says, including a UK evaluation of more than 450,000 candidates, and sets out practical steps for using SJTs fairly.

Why fairness matters

Fair selection is a legal duty as well as good practice. Under the Equality Act 2010, employers must not use selection methods that put people with a protected characteristic, including disability, at a particular disadvantage unless the method can be justified, and they must make reasonable adjustments for disabled candidates [1]. It also makes business sense: a process that screens out capable people for reasons unrelated to the job narrows the talent pool and weakens the workforce.

For any assessment, the fairness question has two parts. First, do groups of candidates who are equally capable score similarly? Second, can an individual candidate who needs an adjustment get one that lets them show what they can do?

SJTs and group differences

SJTs have long been seen as one of the fairer selection methods. Whetzel, McDaniel and Nguyen's meta-analysis found that subgroup differences on SJTs were generally smaller than those typically found on cognitive ability tests, and that differences were larger when SJTs relied more heavily on cognitive load, such as long, complex scenarios or knowledge-based instructions [2]. In other words, how an SJT is designed affects how fair it is.

Neurodiversity and disability: the evidence from 452,933 candidates

Until recently there was very little research on SJTs and neurodivergent candidates. A major step forward came in 2023, when Shalfrooshan, Weldon, Cross and Goldsack published an evaluation of 452,933 candidates who completed an SJT in a real recruitment context, in the British Psychological Society's journal Assessment and Development Matters [3].

The study compared the SJT performance of candidates across disability and neurodivergent categories. Other researchers summarising it report that little to no subgroup differences in performance were found, both for disability categories (including deaf or hearing loss and blind or visual loss) and for neurodivergent categories (including mental health conditions, dyslexia, autism, ADHD and dyspraxia) [3]. Because the evidence comes from a very large sample in a live, high-stakes setting rather than a laboratory study, it carries real weight.

The authors also make the point that research in this area is still limited and that guidance on neurodiversity in recruitment has often been unclear. Their study is strong evidence that a well-designed SJT does not, on average, disadvantage disabled or neurodivergent candidates. It does not mean that every individual will find every SJT equally accessible.

What other recent research adds

Other UK evidence points the same way. In 2026 the Solicitors Regulation Authority reported that candidates with a reasonable adjustment plan for a neurodivergent condition were not disadvantaged in the Solicitors Qualifying Examination, with performance not below that of other candidates [4]. Research by Clevry with the Digital Futures at Work Research Centre found that neurodivergent and neurotypical participants' online test scores, completion times and ease-of-use ratings were broadly comparable [5].

That research also found something useful for test designers: autistic and dyslexic participants reported finding highly hypothetical scenarios more cognitively demanding, and participants generally preferred shorter, realistic, work-based scenarios [5]. Good design helps everyone, and it helps some candidates most.

The individual still matters

Group averages are not the whole story. In The Government Legal Service v Brookes, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld a finding that a multiple-choice SJT had indirectly discriminated against an autistic candidate who had asked to give short written answers instead and had been refused [6]. The tribunal did not say SJTs should be abandoned. It said the employer should have considered a reasonable adjustment for her.

The lesson is that fair assessment needs both well-designed tests and a genuine willingness to adjust the process for individuals.

Making SJTs fair in practice

The evidence suggests several practical steps:

• Use realistic, work-based scenarios rather than abstract or highly hypothetical ones, and keep scenarios clear and concise.

• Remove unnecessary time pressure. All Viewpoint SJTs are untimed, so candidates can focus on judgement rather than speed.

• Give clear instructions and an example before the test starts, so the format is familiar.

• Invite candidates to ask for adjustments, and consider each request individually rather than applying a blanket rule.

• Report results in bands from Very Low to Very High and use them alongside interviews and other evidence, rather than as a single pass or fail.

• Monitor outcomes for different groups in your own recruitment, and act on what you find.

Conclusion

The best available evidence, including a study of more than 450,000 candidates, shows that well-designed SJTs show little to no difference in performance between disabled or neurodivergent candidates and others. That supports their place in fair, evidence-based recruitment. Fairness still depends on how a test is designed and used, and on treating each candidate as an individual.

See our situational judgement tests, our article on the benefits of SJTs in recruitment, or contact us to discuss adjustments for your candidates.

Frequently asked questions

Do SJTs disadvantage neurodivergent candidates?

A UK evaluation of 452,933 candidates found little to no difference in SJT performance between neurodivergent candidates and others. Individuals may still need adjustments, and employers should consider each request.

Are SJTs fairer than ability tests?

Research generally finds smaller group differences on SJTs than on cognitive ability tests, especially when SJTs keep cognitive load low.

What adjustments might a candidate need?

It depends on the person. Examples include extra time where a test is timed, a different format or support to understand the instructions. The best approach is to ask the candidate.

Are Viewpoint SJTs timed?

No. All Viewpoint SJTs are untimed.

References

1. Equality Act 2010, c. 15. London: The Stationery Office.
2. Whetzel, D. L., McDaniel, M. A. & Nguyen, N. T. (2008). Subgroup differences in situational judgment test performance: a meta-analysis. Human Performance, 21(3), 291–309.
3. Shalfrooshan, A., Weldon, P., Cross, L. & Goldsack, E. (2023). Neurodiversity, disability and assessment: evaluation of the impact of SJTs during recruitment. Assessment and Development Matters, 15(1), 29–36.
4. Solicitors Regulation Authority (2026). The performance of candidates with a reasonable adjustment plan for a neurodivergent condition in the SQE. Birmingham: SRA.
5. Clevry and Digital Futures at Work Research Centre (2025). Neurodiversity and online employment testing: how to promote fairness through good psychometric and user interface design. Digit.
6. The Government Legal Service v Brookes [2017] UKEAT 0302_16_2803.