4 minute read
Posted by Chris Platts on 6 May 2025
At ThriveMap, we believe hiring should be fair, transparent, and inclusive. That means ensuring that our assessments don’t disadvantage candidates who may require reasonable adjustments due to disability or neurodiversity.
While no online assessment can be perfectly standardised for every individual need, we’ve built our approach around three core principles: relevance, accessibility, and flexibility.
We start by ensuring that everything we assess is directly related to the job being performed. If a task isn’t essential to success in the role, we won’t include it in the assessment. For example, we only use time-based questions when speed is genuinely required on the job. This means we’re not using artificial constraints that could unfairly penalise certain candidates.
This principle also provides a legal and ethical basis for asking candidates whether they need adjustments. Under the UK Equality Act 2010 (Section 60), employers may ask questions about disability if it relates to the ability to perform a function intrinsic to the work.
Our assessments typically require candidates to read from a screen, type into a keyboard or touchscreen, and navigate using a mouse or similar device – core functions in most entry-level roles we assess for.
Before any new assessment version goes live, we review it with accessibility in mind. Our assessments are compatible with most screen readers, and we can actively avoid question formats that disadvantage those with visual or auditory impairments.
Some of the reasonable adjustments we can support include:
We deliberately avoid full-assessment timing unless it reflects a real-time-sensitive aspect of the job. When time-based performance is essential, we can apply score adjustments for candidates with specific conditions, such as dyslexia.
Fairness sometimes means treating candidates differently based on their needs. That’s why we offer alternative pathways for candidates who declare that they require adjustments.
Accessibility information is often captured on the candidate application form in the ATS. If a candidate requires reasonable adjustments then they can declare it here and take an alternative assessment path that does not have the potential to disadvantage them.
Alternatively, we can implement the following solution within ThriveMap.
This helps ensure that comparisons are not made unfairly between candidates who completed the assessment under different conditions.
While we work toward universal accessibility, some features like time-sensitive tasks or certain question types, are incompatible with tools like screen readers. Making all assessments accessible in the strictest sense would limit our ability to reflect real job requirements accurately.
Also, disabilities differ greatly in type and severity. For example, two people with dyslexia may require very different adjustments. Standardising adjustments for all would not create a level playing field, it would simply create a different kind of imbalance.
We’re committed to fair hiring, and that includes thoughtful, case-by-case approaches to accessibility. If you’re an employer using ThriveMap and want to discuss how to best support candidates with additional needs, we’re happy to advise.
We believe great assessments don’t just test skills, they remove unnecessary barriers. That’s what fairness looks like in practice.
Subscribe for insights, debunks and what amounts to a free, up-to-date recruitment toolkit.
ThriveMap creates customised assessments for high volume roles, which take candidates through an online “day in the life” experience of work in your company. Our assessments have been proven to reduce staff turnover, reduce time to hire, and improve quality of hire.
Not sure what type of assessment is right for your business? Read our guide.
As the new UK National Hiring Strategy highlights, poor hiring decisions come at a significant cost. The strategy estimates that poor hiring decisions cost the UK economy £14.4 billion each year. Unemployment drains a further £61 billion, while inefficient recruitment processes and unfilled vacancies add nearly £150 million more. But the challenge facing employers isn’t […]
Continue reading
Most hiring teams optimise for speed. Time to hire.Application conversion.Assessment completion rates.Offer acceptance. These metrics are easy to measure and easy to improve. They also tell us very little about whether hiring actually worked. The real test of hiring success happens months later, when new employees decide whether to stay. Across early careers hiring, this […]
Continue reading
What 200,000+ candidate journeys reveal about how hiring performance changes across sectors Why do candidates complete nearly every assessment in some industries — but never even start them in others? At first glance, the explanation seems obvious. Different sectors have different candidates, different expectations, or different hiring challenges. But analysis of more than 200,000 pre-hire […]
Continue reading