A candidate asks for extra time on a cognitive assessment, captions for a video interview, or a different way to complete part of the selection process. Can candidates request adjustments? Yes. For Australian employers, the better question is how to respond in a way that is fair to the candidate, consistent across the process and defensible if challenged.
Adjustment requests are not a reason to abandon structured hiring. Handled properly, they strengthen it. A well-designed selection process can accommodate an individual’s disability or access needs while still assessing the capabilities that matter for the role.
Can candidates request adjustments during recruitment?
Candidates can request reasonable adjustments at any point in the recruitment process. This may include when applying, completing psychometric or skills assessments, attending an interview, participating in an assessment centre, or undergoing pre-employment checks.
In Australia, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 provides a key framework. Employers must not discriminate against a person because of disability in employment-related decisions, including recruitment. Depending on the circumstances, that can require an employer to consider reasonable changes that allow a candidate to participate on an equal basis.
A request does not automatically mean an employer must provide the exact solution proposed. Nor does it mean a candidate must be selected regardless of their result. The employer can still assess whether the person can perform the inherent requirements of the job. The obligation is to consider practical adjustments before deciding that a candidate cannot participate or meet the role requirements.
This distinction matters. An adjustment should remove an unnecessary barrier created by the assessment method, not remove the genuine capability being assessed.
Start with the job, not the standard process
The strongest response to an adjustment request begins with a clear understanding of the role. Identify the inherent requirements: the essential tasks and capabilities that cannot be removed without changing the nature of the job.
For example, a customer service role may genuinely require clear verbal communication with customers. A role involving safety-critical equipment may require particular visual, physical or cognitive capabilities. But a timed online assessment might not be an inherent requirement in itself. If speed of reasoning is not central to the role, extra time may be an appropriate way to measure a candidate’s reasoning ability more fairly.
This is why job analysis is more than an administrative step. It enables HR teams to distinguish between what must be assessed and the particular format used to assess it. Without that distinction, organisations can unintentionally defend a familiar process rather than a genuine business requirement.
What adjustments might look like
Requests vary widely, and the right response depends on the candidate’s needs, the assessment being used and the demands of the role. Common adjustments can include additional assessment time, rest breaks, accessible test formats, screen-reader compatibility, captions or transcripts, Auslan interpreters, an alternative interview format, a support person where appropriate, or scheduling changes.
A candidate with dyslexia may request extra time and a lower-distraction setting for a written assessment. A candidate with hearing impairment may need captions for asynchronous video interview instructions or a different interview arrangement. A candidate with anxiety may ask for advance information about the interview structure or an alternative to a group exercise.
These requests should not be treated as identical. An adjustment that supports equitable participation in one process may compromise the construct being measured in another. If a role requires rapid, accurate data entry, removing all time constraints from a data-entry test may undermine the relevance of the result. The more appropriate approach may be to consider whether a different assessment method can measure the same job-relevant capability while preserving the requirement being tested.
Protect assessment validity while supporting access
Employers sometimes worry that adjustments make assessment results incomparable. That risk can be real, but it is manageable when decisions are grounded in assessment design rather than assumption.
Psychometric assessments measure defined constructs, such as cognitive ability, personality preferences or work-related judgement. Skills tests measure observable capability. The question is whether the proposed adjustment changes the construct, or simply changes the way the candidate accesses the assessment.
Extra time, for instance, may be suitable where the objective is to assess accuracy, reasoning quality or comprehension without making speed the central criterion. It may be less suitable where processing speed is explicitly relevant and has been established as an inherent requirement. Similarly, providing a screen reader can improve access without changing a candidate’s underlying reasoning ability, provided the assessment format and scoring support its use.
This is where assessment providers and qualified psychologists add practical value. They can advise on whether an adjustment is likely to affect score interpretation, whether alternative forms are available, and how to document any limitations. RightPeople supports employers with validated assessment tools and expert input so teams can make these decisions with more confidence than a case-by-case guess.
A practical process for handling requests
Consistency does not mean giving every candidate the same experience. It means using the same fair decision-making process each time an adjustment is requested.
First, invite requests early. Include a clear statement in application, interview and assessment communications that candidates may request adjustments. Use plain language and provide a discreet contact point. Candidates should not have to disclose sensitive information to a line manager or explain their needs repeatedly across different stages.
Next, understand the barrier and the requested support. Ask only for information relevant to arranging the adjustment and assessing its impact on the selection process. Avoid making broad requests for medical details where they are not necessary. In some cases, supporting information may assist, particularly where an adjustment could affect assessment interpretation, but the approach should be proportionate.
Then assess the request against the role’s inherent requirements, the purpose of the selection activity, available alternatives, cost and operational practicality. Consider whether the adjustment would create unjustifiable hardship. This is a high threshold, not a convenient reason to decline a request because it requires planning or modest expenditure.
Finally, record the decision and communicate it clearly. Confirm what will be provided, who will arrange it and what the candidate can expect on the day. If the original request cannot be accommodated, explain the reason respectfully and explore viable alternatives. A vague refusal creates risk and damages candidate trust.
Train recruiters and hiring managers to respond well
Many adjustment issues become difficult because the first response is inconsistent. A recruiter may promise an accommodation without checking assessment implications. A hiring manager may reject a request because they believe it gives the candidate an advantage. Neither approach is reliable.
Recruitment teams need a defined escalation path. Frontline staff should know how to acknowledge requests, protect confidentiality and refer technical questions to the appropriate HR, legal, assessment or workplace adjustments specialist. They should also understand that a request for an adjustment is not evidence that a candidate is unable to perform the role.
Hiring managers need practical language. A useful response is: “Thank you for letting us know what you need to participate in the process. We will review the request against the requirements of this stage and confirm the available arrangements.” It is professional, non-committal and focused on action.
Build accessibility into selection design
The most efficient organisations do not wait for every individual request before considering accessibility. They design recruitment processes that reduce predictable barriers from the outset.
That may mean choosing digital assessments with accessibility options, providing clear instructions before testing, allowing reasonable scheduling flexibility, using structured interviews with questions supplied in a consistent format, and ensuring video interview platforms work with captions and common assistive technology. It also means avoiding unnecessary hurdles. If a capability is not relevant to job performance, ask whether it needs to be tested at all.
Proactive design improves more than compliance. Candidates receive a clearer process, recruiters spend less time solving avoidable problems, and hiring teams collect more meaningful evidence about job fit. It can also improve employer reputation in competitive talent markets, particularly for government, healthcare, education and large-volume recruitment programs.
Keep the decision evidence-based
Adjustment requests can feel complex because each situation has individual elements. The underlying principle is straightforward: assess people against the real requirements of the role, not against avoidable barriers in your process.
Document the role requirements, use validated and relevant assessment methods, consider requests genuinely, and seek specialist advice where assessment validity or legal obligations are unclear. That approach supports fairer candidate participation without compromising the consistency, speed or defensibility that structured hiring is designed to deliver.
A candidate who can show their capability through an accessible process gives your organisation better evidence on which to make the hiring decision. That is not a concession. It is better selection practice.
