Year: 2026
Type: article
Study design: Observational Study
Abstract: A persistent barrier to employment for autistic individuals is the personnel selection process. Although prior research demonstrates that traditional employment interviews disadvantage autistic applicants relative to neurotypical applicants, far less is known about whether commonly used alternative selection methods reduce or reproduce such disparities. Drawing on a sample of autistic and neurotypical adults, this study examines subgroup differences across three widely used selection tools: general mental ability (GMA) tests, personality inventories, and situational judgment tests (SJTs). We assess subgroup differences using standardized mean comparisons and further examine predictors of SJT performance using multivariate regression analyses. The results indicate that all three selection methods produce meaningful subgroup differences that are unfavorable to autistic respondents. Moreover, autistic respondents scored significantly lower on the SJT even after controlling for GMA, personality traits, gender, and age. Together, these preliminary findings suggest that commonly used selection tools, often promoted as objective alternatives to interviews, may nonetheless result in adverse impact for autistic applicants if used in hiring decisions. We discuss implications for personnel selection research, the design of inclusive hiring systems, and the need to develop assessment methods that better capture job-relevant strengths among neurodiverse applicants.
Source: PLoS ONE
Institution: Virginia Commonwealth University
Language: English
Topic: Employer Branding and e-HRM
Domain: Social Sciences
SDG: Reduced inequalities
Open Access status: gold
Estimated APC paid: $2,382
OpenAlex ID: W7203698019