General Questions

Does a reasonable adjustment provide an unfair advantage to candidates with disabilities over other candidates?

No, it does not.

  • Adjustments change how a candidate with a disability demonstrates learning but do not change the integrity of the assessment. The candidate with a disability needs to show knowledge and skills in all tasks related to the occupation.
  • Adjustments aim to meet the specific needs of a candidate with a disability but are not a guarantee of successful examination.

By providing reasonable adjustments during knowledge assessment and practical test, candidates with disabilities can access and undertake assessment on the same basis as those without disability and get their skills recognized. Competency standards may be fixed – but how they are met doesn’t have to be!

An adjustment is considered reasonable if:

  • It meets the individual needs of the candidate with a disability to undertake the assessment as anyone else
  • It maintains the integrity of the assessment requirements: the candidate with a disability still needs to show knowledge and skills in all tasks related to the occupation as anyone else
  • A similar modification can be provided in the workplace by the employer to accommodate the needs of the trainee or employee with a disability
  • It does cause major difficulties in terms of costs, time and efforts to implement it

The following are examples of unreasonable adjustments:

  • Provision of unlimited time to undertake the assessment. The amount of additional time must be justifiable based on the type of disability and individual needs. The circular specifies that a minimum of 25% of extra-time may be provided to complete the assessment.
  • Lowering standard or expectation by removing a unit of competency. In contrast, allowing the candidate to perform the task in a different way to demonstrate what he or she can do is considered reasonable.