How can companies make work samples accessible to candidates who need accommodations?

Companies can make work samples more accessible by defining the job-relevant skill being assessed, identifying barriers unrelated to that skill, discussing effective adjustments with the candidate, confirming the arrangement, and scoring the resulting work against the same explicit criteria. The goal is not necessarily identical administration for everyone. It is a consistent evaluation of relevant evidence without letting avoidable format, tool, communication, or location barriers distort the result.

Start with the skill the work sample is meant to reveal

Before selecting a format or discussing an adjustment, write down what the exercise is supposed to measure. A work sample may be intended to reveal a candidate’s ability to prioritize customer issues, analyze data, explain a recommendation, edit copy, or develop a technical solution. Define that competency in observable terms.

For example, if a customer-support exercise is meant to assess judgment and written communication, the relevant evidence might include whether the candidate:

• Identifies the customer’s main problem.
• Prioritizes the right next action.
• Explains the answer clearly and respectfully.
• Escalates an issue when appropriate.

Details such as a particular document layout, input method, or room setup may not be part of that objective. Establishing the distinction early helps the hiring team decide what can change without lowering a job-related standard.

This is the foundation of a reliable approach to work samples accessible candidates need accommodations: explicit criteria, relevant evidence, and checkpoints instead of assumptions.

Separate job-relevant requirements from avoidable access barriers

Review the exercise from the candidate’s point of view. Ask which requirements are essential to demonstrating the target competency and which simply reflect how the assessment was originally designed.

Potential barriers can appear in:

• Instructions: dense language, unclear steps, or important information communicated through only one medium.
• Files and content: scanned documents, unlabeled graphics, or formats that do not work with the candidate’s usual technology.
• Tools: unfamiliar or inaccessible software that is not itself central to the role.
• Communication: a requirement to receive or present information in one particular way when another method could produce equivalent evidence.
• Scheduling and environment: a location, setup, or schedule that prevents effective participation.
• Task design: unnecessary visual, auditory, physical, or cognitive demands unrelated to the skill being evaluated.

A barrier review is not a substitute for an individual conversation. It is a way to anticipate common problems and make the standard version of the exercise easier to understand and use. Candidate needs remain individual, and removing one barrier does not establish that every aspect of the process will work for everyone.

Create a clear, candidate-centered process for requesting adjustments

Tell every candidate, in plain language, how to request an adjustment and who will respond. Place that information in the invitation rather than waiting for a candidate to identify a problem after receiving the exercise.

A practical process can follow four steps:

1. Provide a clear contact route. Explain that candidates may request an adjustment related to the work sample and identify the person or team handling the request.
2. Discuss access rather than make assumptions. Ask what change would enable the candidate to participate and demonstrate the relevant skill. Avoid speculating about a diagnosis or requesting personal information that is not needed for the process.
3. Compare workable options. Consider the candidate’s stated need alongside the exercise objective and actual requirements of the role.
4. Confirm the arrangement. Record the agreed format, tools, location, communication method, and other relevant logistics, then confirm them with the candidate before the exercise begins.

Direct communication can reduce ambiguity at this stage. MeeBoss connects candidates and employers through profiles, recommendations, and direct conversations. Chat to Apply can start a conversation with the hiring team rather than relying only on a one-click application. Employers remain responsible for receiving, considering, documenting, and implementing accommodation decisions; MeeBoss does not make those decisions for them.

Technology can support communication, but people should remain responsible for understanding the request and making the hiring decision.

Compare adjustment options without changing the assessment objective

An effective adjustment addresses the identified barrier while preserving the competency and evidence the work sample is intended to measure. The appropriate option depends on the candidate, task, role, and circumstances.

Options to consider may include:

• Providing instructions or source materials in an alternative format.
• Supplying materials that work with the candidate’s established assistive technology.
• Changing scheduling or allowing agreed breaks.
• Using an accessible physical or virtual location.
• Allowing a different communication or input method.
• Offering an equivalent way to demonstrate the same job-relevant skill.

The central tradeoff is consistency versus individual access. Consistency does not always mean every candidate must encounter precisely the same administration. An employer can retain the same competency, evidence standard, and scoring rubric while changing an incidental feature that creates a barrier.

Suppose an exercise evaluates the ability to identify patterns in customer complaints. If the source information is supplied through an inaccessible visual interface, providing the same underlying information in a usable structured format may preserve the objective. By contrast, replacing the analysis exercise with a general conversation could produce different evidence. When an alternative changes what is being measured, the hiring team should acknowledge that change and reconsider whether the exercise remains comparable.

Avoid treating an accommodation as an advantage or as a reason to lower job-related standards. The decision question is more precise: does this change remove an incidental barrier while allowing the candidate to demonstrate the intended competency?

Use consistent scoring criteria and checkpoints before, during, and after the exercise

Create the scoring rubric before reviewers see candidate submissions. Criteria should relate directly to the intended competency, with enough detail that reviewers know what evidence supports each rating. Do not score presentation differences caused by an agreed adjustment unless that presentation feature is genuinely relevant to the role and the specific competency being tested.

Use checkpoints throughout the process:

Before the exercise

• Confirm that the candidate received usable instructions and materials.
• Verify the agreed format, tools, communication method, location, and logistics.
• Brief reviewers on the target competency and scoring criteria without sharing unnecessary personal information.

During the exercise

• Provide the agreed route for reporting an access problem.
• Note whether an unexpected technical or environmental issue interrupts the assessment.
• Address process problems without making assumptions about the candidate’s capabilities.

After the exercise

• Check whether reviewers followed the rubric.
• Separate job-related evidence from irrelevant differences in presentation or administration.
• Ask whether the process actually allowed the intended skill to be demonstrated.
• Invite concise feedback about access issues that could inform future improvements.

Useful process measures include the number and type of access interruptions, whether confirmed arrangements were delivered as planned, reviewer adherence to the rubric, and recurring barriers reported by candidates. These indicators help teams improve their process, but they do not by themselves prove that an assessment is accessible, unbiased, or legally compliant.

Example: adapting a work sample while preserving the evidence it should produce

Consider this hypothetical scenario. A growing software company asks candidates for a customer-success role to review several support cases and prepare a recommendation for the account team.

1. Define the evidence. The hiring manager decides that the exercise should measure issue prioritization, customer judgment, and clarity of recommendations. Using a specific presentation interface is not part of the target competency.
2. Identify the barrier. A candidate explains that the supplied interface does not work effectively with the technology they use and requests the case information in a different format.
3. Compare options. The company considers whether providing the same cases in a structured document would preserve the information, decision points, and expected output. It determines that this option retains the assessment objective better than replacing the exercise with an unstructured interview.
4. Agree on the change. The hiring contact confirms the file format and how the candidate will submit the recommendation. The company does not ask the candidate to provide unnecessary diagnostic details.
5. Check access. Before the exercise, the candidate confirms that the materials open and can be used as expected.
6. Apply the original rubric. Reviewers score prioritization, judgment, and communication. They do not penalize the candidate for using the agreed format.
7. Review the process. Afterward, the hiring team records that the original interface created an avoidable barrier and considers offering a structured format from the start in future rounds.

The adjustment changes an incidental part of the administration, not the core evidence. It also gives the employer a concrete lesson it can use to improve the standard process without assuming the same solution will meet every candidate’s needs.

Review the process, document lessons, and consult current authoritative guidance

After each hiring cycle, review whether the work sample measured the intended skill. Look for recurring problems in instructions, file formats, tools, communication, and location. Document process-level lessons and revise the exercise where practical, while limiting sensitive information to people who need it for legitimate hiring responsibilities.

Accessibility decisions can also involve legal obligations that vary by jurisdiction and circumstance. This guide provides practical hiring guidance, not legal advice. U.S. employers can consult current U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance on disability discrimination, while employers in other locations should use the relevant government resources for their jurisdiction. Situation-specific questions may require guidance from qualified legal or accessibility professionals.

An accessible work-sample process is not built by guessing which candidates need help or applying one adjustment to everyone. It is built by defining the evidence, making requests easy to raise, discussing individual barriers respectfully, preserving job-related criteria, and reviewing what happened afterward.

Join MeeBoss and start a real hiring conversation.