Systematic review explores the impact of AI recruitment tools on hiring for individuals with disabilities, suggesting both benefits and ethical risks.
Artificial intelligence (AI) recruitment tools are becoming increasingly integrated into current hiring systems, where they support functions such as resume screening, pre-employment assessments, candidate engagement, and automated interviewing. While these technologies are often promoted as mechanisms for improving efficiency, objectivity, and accessibility, growing concerns have emerged regarding their implications for individuals with disabilities. Existing scholarship on AI recruitment tools and disability remains fragmented, with much of the literature emphasizing either opportunities or discriminatory risks without systematically or holistically examining both dimensions. To address this gap, this study conducted a systematic literature review examining the opportunities and risks individuals with disabilities encounter in AI-mediated hiring processes. Guided by PRISMA-informed procedures, we analyzed 21 studies published between 2020 and 2026 across multiple major databases related to AI, recruitment technologies, disability, accessibility, and hiring systems. The findings suggest that AI recruitment tools may create opportunities for more flexible and accessible hiring through adaptive technologies, alternative communication modalities, and reduced social pressure during interviews. However, the review also identifies substantial ethical risks arising across both the design and development stage and the use and engagement stage of AI recruitment tools. This review argues that AI recruitment tools should be understood not as neutral technologies, but as sociotechnical systems that embed institutional assumptions about professionalism, communication, and employability. Developing more equitable AI-mediated hiring systems therefore requires participatory, disability-centered, and culturally responsive approaches to AI design and governance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guler et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: