The role of human resource practices for including persons with disabilities in the workforce: a systematic literature review

Figures & data

Table 1. List of key search terms.

Stage 1	Disab ^a
	AND
	Selection and staffing	Training and development	(Performance) appraisal promotion and career management	Compensation and benefits
	Application Interview Hir ^a Recruit ^a Selection Staffing	Competency Development Intervention training Workshop	Advancement Appraisal Career management Career path Career planning Evaluation Performance Promoti ^a Succession planning	Pay ^a Benefit Compensation incentives Remuneration Rewards Wage
Stage 2	AND
	Work ^a ; employ ^a ; HR; HRM; human resource

a All derivatives of the word.

Figure 1. Systematic literature search and selection process.

Table 2. Published articles included in review.

Study	Disability type(s)	National context(s)	Method/design	Sample	Key findings ^a APaCM: (Performance) appraisal, promotion, and career management; CaB: compensation and benefits; SaS: selection and staffing; TaD: training and development
Ameri et al. (2018)	Asperger’s syndrome/Spinal cord injury	US	Experiment	Employers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD and their chances of being hired. Disability bias accounts for low employer interest in hiring PWD compared to applicants without disabilities (despite having identical resumes). Disability types and related productivity or accommodation concerns had little influence on interest in hiring PWD. – Size of organizations affect employers’ attitudes toward hiring PWD. Interest in applicants with disabilities is less likely in small companies, suggesting that ADA is constraining discriminatory behavior of medium and large employers.
Araten-Bergman (2016)	Unspecified	Israel	Longitudinal survey	Supervisors	SaS – Positive attitudes and intentions to hire PWD often not resulting in actual hiring. Instead, the existence of a written disability hiring policy and providing disability training emerged as significant determinants of hiring.
Baldwin and Choe (2014)	Sensory	US	Government survey (SIPP ^b + O*Net ^c )	PWD/Employees	CaB − 26% (13%) disability-related mean wage differential for men (women). – Disability-related wage differential is attributed to differences in productivity; around one third (one tenth) of the male (female) earnings gap is unexplained and potentially attributed to discrimination.
Baldwin and Marcus (2007)	Mental	US	Government survey (MEPS ^d )	PWD/Employees	CaB – Wages of persons with mental illness are significantly lower than those without such disorders. − 7.5% disability-related offer wage differential (hourly, average values); after correcting selection bias, the wage differential is 5.1%. – Mean wage differential varies from less than 1% to 33%, depending on certain mental disorders; adjustment disorders have the least impact on wages while psychotic disorders have the greatest. – Unexplained wage differential on average: 1.5%; again, significant differences based on disability type (e.g. 14.8% wage differential for anxiety disorders, 11.8% of wage differential is unexplained).
Bell and Klein (2001)	Multiple	US	Experiment	Students/Employees	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD and their chances of being hired. Bias in favor or against certain disability types. PWD were rated significantly higher in activity and potency than applicants without a disability.
Bengisu and Balta (2011)	Multiple	Turkey	Delphi panel surveys	Experts	SaS – Hiring of employees should be based on merit, suitability, and capability of the candidate, regardless of the presence or degree of disability; PWDs’ objective constraints are critical for job placements. – Companies should apply special conditions for applicants with disabilities, such as customizing entry-level examinations. TaD – Companies should provide disability inclusiveness trainings for managers; also, training and orientation programs should be provided for newly hired PWD.
Boden and Galizzi (2003)	Work injury	US	Government surveys	PWD	CaB – Earnings losses in the quarter after an injury are similar for women and men, but women tend to fare worse than men in the years following the injury. Much of disparity in losses is likely attributed to gender differences and reductions in hours worked reduced compensation is also potentially linked to discrimination.
Bordieri and Drehmer (1997)	Multiple	US	Survey	Managers	APaCM – Appraisals on future performance of PWD are affected by stigma and stereotypes, for instance due to skepticism about PWDs’ readiness for promotion compared to non-disabled employees. Disability type matters.
Brecher et al. (2006)	Physical	US	Experiment	Students	SaS – When appraising applicants with disabilities, structured procedures have the potential to be fairer, more accurate, and more resistant to biases and stereotypes than non-structured ones. – Concerns that standardized formats may be experienced as decision-making hindering by employers, and as unwelcoming or inflexible by applicants with disabilities. – In non-structured interviews, applicants with a disability are rated more favorably than those without. – To support fair interview processes for PWD, note-taking, multiple interviewers, behaviorally anchored rating scales, and job analyses that consider necessary and desirable qualifications are suggested.
Bricout and Bentley (2000)	Physical/Psychiatric	US	Survey	HR managers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. PWD rated as less employable than applicants without disabilities. No significant difference between the ratings of persons with physical and psychiatric disabilities in terms of employability.
Bruyère et al. (2004)	Unspecified	UK/US	Survey	HR professionals	SaS – Biases and stigmas significantly drive the appraisal of PWD. Modifying attitudes of colleagues and supervisors toward PWD was the change most often made but also seen as most difficult to implement. Monetary issues are not considered as major barriers to PWD’s employment and advancement; but e.g. perceptions about PWDs’ lack of skills or knowledge are. – Wide-spread familiarity with making changes related to recruitment, screening, testing and orientation for PWD. But several HR professionals also face difficulties when applying certain legal basics like making information accessible for persons with visual or learning disabilities. TaD – Staff training, on-site consultation/technical assistance to employers, and mentoring were found to be effective to reduce employment barriers for PWD by the majority of companies. – Disability inclusiveness trainings mostly focus on the accommodation or adjustment process, or on nondiscriminatory equal employment treatment. – Provision and perception of effectiveness regarding practices are affected by national context. Training is, e.g. related to defining essential job functions and the accommodation process offered more in the US than in the UK.
Bruyère et al. (2006)	Unspecified	US	Survey	SHRM members/NBGH members	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. Uncertainty of PWDs’ performance and qualifications are among the most common barriers to PWDs’ employment or advancement. – Wide-spread familiarity with making changes related to recruitment, screening, testing and orientation for PWD. But several HR professionals also face difficulties when applying certain legal basics like making information accessible for persons with visual or learning disabilities. TaD – Staff training, on-site consultation/technical assistance to employers, and mentoring were found effective to reduce employment barriers for PWD. More than 3/4 of companies provide training for disability inclusiveness covering nondiscriminatory recruiting, confidentiality requirements, nondiscriminatory discipline, and defining job functions. – Provision and perception of effectiveness regarding practices are affected by company size.
Cesare et al. (1990)	Multiple	US	Experiment	Students	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD positively and negatively. Disability type matters: Potential leniency bias toward job applicants with a physical disability; for instance, an applicant using crutches was rated the highest, while an applicant who was hard of hearing received the lowest rating.
Chan et al. (2010)	Physical/Sensory	US	Survey	HR managers/Line managers	SaS – HR managers’ and line managers’ attitudes toward hiring PWD improve when they have previous experience with PWD, but is mediated by knowledge of the ADA legislation, job accommodations, and the inclusion of disability in the organization’s diversity statement. – Managers rated themselves as being moderately positive about PWDs’ productivity and reliability. – Managers report challenges related to hiring and supporting PWD, including lack of resources, incentives, knowledge of ADA, and reasonable accommodations. TaD – Training for disability inclusiveness has the potential to improve managers’ attitudes toward PWD. Knowledge of ADA and ADA job accommodations are the two most significant predictors of efforts to recruit, hire, retain, and promote PWD in the workplace. – ADA and job accommodations training is not provided regularly, reducing the level of knowledge regarding the ADA.
Charles (2003)	Unspecified	US	Government survey (PSID ^e )	PWD/Employees	CaB – PWD’s earnings drop sharply around the date of disability onset, mainly as a result of hours reductions, and subsequently recovery. – Greater chronicity is associated with larger wage losses. – Younger PWD exhibit smaller wage losses and more robust wage gains.
Chi and Qu (2003)	Unspecified	US	Survey	Employers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. Respondentsexpressed (to some degree) favorable attitudes toward PWD; but concerns, e.g. about training or cost of accommodation remain. – Employers’ attitudes toward hiring PWD improve when they have previous experience with PWD.
Chi and Qu (2004)	Physical/Sensory/Mental	US	Survey	Employers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. Concerns, e.g. about training or cost of accommodation. “The sentiment of appraisals is affected by disability type, where employers have more positive attitudes toward employees with sensory impairment and physical disabilities compared to employees with mental disabilities. Persons with physical disabilities receive more favorable employability. – Employers’ attitudes toward hiring PWD improve when they have previous experience with PWD.
Colella and Varma (1999)	Hearing/Vision	US	Experiment	Students	APaCM – Appraisal of PWDs’ current performance was performed accurately when clear objective information was available; appraisals on PWD’s future performance were affected by stigma and stereotypes about disability job-fit. Raters were less willing to recommend PWD for promotion.
Colella et al. (1998)	Dyslexia	US	Experiment	Students	APaCM – PWD’s performance was rated fairly when performance information was directly available. Fair appraisals of PWD’s performance can be achieved through standardization. Future performance of PWD was expected to be equal to current performance. – Boundary conditions affect appraisals: appraisals tend to differ when rater is affected by PWDs’ performance. Appraisals tend to be more negative in case of poor-fit situations.
Dalgin and Bellini (2008)	Physical/Psychiatric	US	Experiment	Employers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. Disability type matters: negative bias against psychiatric disabilities; applicants with psychiatric disabilities are rated more negatively than those with physical disabilities. – Applicant with physical disability who disclosed the disabilities received highest employability rating.
DeCarvalho-Freitas and Stathi (2017)	Unspecified	Brazil	Experiment	Students/Managers	TaD – Imagined intergroup contact is an efficient preparatory tool in the implementation of organizational actions related to securing and promoting diversity, improving the belief in performance, and attitudes toward PWD in organizational settings.
DeLeire (2001)	Multiple	US	Government survey (SIPP ^f )	PWD/Employees	CaB – Unexplained gap between work-limited PWD and non-disabled employees is a combination of discrimination and productivity differences with 5–8% earnings gap due to discrimination.
Diksa and Rogers (1996)	Psychiatric	US	Survey	Employers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD and their chances of being hired. The sentiment of appraisals is affected negatively by administrative concerns, concerns about work performance, work personality, and symptoms regarding psychiatric disabilities. – Levels of concern differ by industry type: persons with psychiatric disabilities were most likely hired by companies in the retail trade rather than by companies in other industries. – Employers’ attitudes toward hiring PWD improve when they have previous experience with PWD.
Erickson et al. (2014)	Unspecified	US	Survey	SHRM members	SaS – Supply-side barriers (e.g. impediments associated with PWDs’ skills) and demand-side barriers (e.g. costs and managers’ attitudes) affect PWDs’ employment or advancement. Organizational barriers to hiring PWD and, e.g. barriers due to attitudes/stereotypes or concerns about training costs decreased in importance; concerns about accommodation costs remained significant. TaD – Relative absence of retention and advancement practices, as well as of disability-inclusive recruitment practices that legitimize the disability employment within the organizations. E.g., less than half of the organizations implemented mentoring; and only slightly over half of organizations surveyed provide training to HR staff and supervisors on effective interviewing approaches for candidates with disabilities. – Training for disability inclusiveness (implemented by around two thirds of companies) seems to improve organizational attitudes toward PWD and related employment decisions. Mentoring
Fraser et al. (2011)	Unspecified	US	Focus groups	Managers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD and their chances of being hired. Concerns relate to behavioral and to normative beliefs regarding co-worker and manager negativity. – The sentiment of appraisals/employers’ attitudes toward hiring PWD depends on the size of organizations with openness toward hiring PWD increasing with company size. – Larger employers generally expressed fewer concerns about PWDs’ ability to perform tasks than small and midsized employers; but a lack of commitment regarding actual hiring practices remained.
Gilbride et al. (2003)	Unspecified	US	Focus groups/Interviews	PWD/Employers/Placement providers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD and their chances of being hired. Employers’ attitudes toward hiring PWD improve when they have previous experience with PWD. – Applicants with (and without) disabilities have to meet the following criteria to be considered for a position: being able to perform essential functions of the job effectively, with or without accommodations, and soft skills (i.e. positive attitude) to be reliable.
Gouvier et al. (1991)	Neurological	US	Experiment	Students	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD negatively. Disability type matters: raters rated applicants with nonvisible, non-neurologic disabilities better than those with visible and neurologic ones. Persons with visible disabilities are less likely chosen for jobs requiring high amounts of public contact.
Gouvier et al. (2003)	Multiple	US	Experiment	Students	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. Discrimination hinges on course of a disability and disability type. Applicants with back injury (i.e. physical disability) are rated significantly more favorably than those with a developmental disability, brain injury, or mental illness. No effects of public contact were found.
Gröschl (2007)	Unspecified	Canada	Interviews	Managers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. Focus on aesthetics and physical attractiveness as well as industry-specific challenges, such as mobility requirements and shift or night work, might hinder the recruitment of PWD. – Proactive attraction and recruitment of PWD is mostly limited. None of the participating hotels had policies or company documents, such as mission statements, referring specifically to PWD. – Only one hotel had a specific recruitment strategy for employees with physical disabilities. TaD – More disability inclusiveness training is suggested to improve, e.g. educative programs and pre-employment initiatives for PWD. – Training for PWD is limited/not provided, as it is perceived as more expensive than their counterparts without disabilities. However, mentoring and developing programs like vocational training are suggested.
Gröschl (2013)	Unspecified	Germany	Interviews/Observations	Managers/Employees/Customers	SaS – Appraisals of applicants with (and without) disabilities should be based on job-relevant characteristics and abilities. – Selection methods with strong predictive validity of future job performance and matching PWDs’ competencies with job requirements allows that PWD have no effect on their performance. TaD – Objective, factual, and immediate feedback supported by examples, and frequently individualized training programs that are to address and accommodate each employee’s disability are helpful measures.
Gunderson and Hyatt (1996)	Work injury	Canada	Survey	PWD	CaB – Injured workers who receive job accommodations might receive lower wages, which was found to be in essence ‘paying the price’ of their own accommodations. This mainly happened when employees did not return to the employer where their accident took place (working for a new employer).
Gunderson and Lee (2016)	Multiple	Canada	Government survey (PALS ^g )	PWD	CaB – PWD earn less income relative to employees without disabilities, even after controlling for variables like quality of the job, tenure, and actual performance (10% disability-related wage differential). – Disability-related wage differential is commonly attributed to discrimination.
Habeck et al. (2010)	Unspecified	US	Survey	Employers	SaS – Efforts to include PWD in recruitment and hiring of new employees are limited. Validity of ratings of hiring practices regarding PWD may be threatened. Retention and disability management practices do not correlate with intention and commitment to hire PWD but including disability in a company’s diversity plan does. TaD – Absence and disability management and retention policies and practices relate to improving health and managing health conditions and resolving disability and return to work issues. – Provision of development opportunities for PWD and related tools are highly correlated with retention, but the importance of developing such practices is relatively low.
Hand and Tryssenaar (2006)	Mental	Canada	Interviews/Survey	Employers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. Employers are reluctant to hire persons with mental illness due to safety concerns and concerns about (poor) work performance and quality of Managers report moderate to high degrees of concern regarding all applicant characteristics, specifically regarding workplace personality (interpersonal factors). Employers might be reluctant to hire persons with mental illness due to concerns about Study Disability type(s) National context(s) Method/design Sample Key findingsa APaCM: (Performance) appraisal, promotion, and career management; CaB: compensation and benefits; SaS: selection and staffing; TaD: training and development (poor) behaviour at work, safety and work performance. – Previous contact with persons with mental illness may alleviate some areas of concern.
Harcourt et al. (2005)	Unspecified	New Zealand	Archival documents	Organizations	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. The sentiment of appraisals is affected by concerns about PWD’s performance, cost pressures and institutional concerns for perceived legitimacy. – Coercive pressures necessary to treat PWD appropriately. – Lack of compliance with legal standards to provide accessible and inclusive selection. – The likelihood of using health- or disability-related questions in the application process depends on boundary conditions: Health- or disability-related questions used more commonly… – when companies pay higher rather than fewer benefits to injured employees – in larger rather than smaller companies – in civil service organizations rather than private-sector ones
Hayes and Macan (1997)	Unspecified	US	Survey	PWD/Recruiters	SaS – PWDs’ self-presentation affects perception of PWDs’ qualifications and, in turn, affects the perceived employability and final hiring decisions. – Aesthetic qualities affect the appraisals of persons without disabilities, but not evaluations of PWD.
Hayes et al. (1995)	Unspecified	US	Survey	PWD/Employees	SaS – A comprehensive list of seven selection methods is discussed in terms of fairness and job-relatedness in the context of disability.
Hazer and Bedell (2000)	Physical/Psychiatric	US	Experiment	HR managers/Students	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. Requesting accommodation affects the evaluation of PWDs’ employability and PWDs’ chances of being hired negatively. – ADA knowledge and attitude toward the law are not significantly related to applicants with disabilities’ suitability ratings.
Hebl and Kleck (2002)	Obesity/Wheelchair	US	Experiment	Students	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. High controllability of a disability (e.g. obesity) affects appraisal and hiring intention negatively. Applicants with concealable disabilities may have more success in ‘passing’ compared to those without disabilities or a disability identity. In case of disability disclosure, persons with physical disabilities were evaluated more positively than obese persons were.
Hernandez et al. (2012)	Unspecified	US	Focus groups	Employers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. Attitudes toward hiring PWD were favorable in both nonprofit and for-profit organizations, but subjective norms remained. Even employers with positive attitudes might perceive abilities and talents of PWD incorrectly. – Employers’ attitudes improve when managers have previous experience with PWD.
Huang and Chen (2015)	Unspecified	Taiwan	Interviews	Employers	APaCM – Promotions are based on competence and work-related performance appraisals, while disability as a factor was considered irrelevant. – Promotions that require changes in work duties, work content, and interpersonal situations on the job might be perceived as a problem for PWD by managers, and promotions, as a result, may be considered inappropriate for PWD. SaS – Lack of disability-oriented processes in Canadian hotels. – PWDs’ objective constraints are critical for job placements. – Employers’ attitudes toward hiring PWD may improve when they have previous experience with PWD. – Hiring of PWD is affected by policy implications like quota systems. – (Structured) interviews are helpful selection practices regarding PWD, since they allow the assessment of PWDs’ qualifications, job match, and the discussion about potential accommodations and work conditions. – Written resources, such as application forms or resumes, as stand-alone practices are of little help to assess applicants. – Referrals as supportive tools (especially for unskilled positions) allow clarity about PWD’s abilities, job history, and individual characteristics. – ‘Physical conditions’, ‘parents’ attitudes’, and ‘location of residence’ are significant hiring criteria regarding applicants with intellectual disabilities. ‘Soft skills’ are also relevant hiring criteria for PWD. TaD – Orientation procedures and training on-the-job provide PWD with background information and increase their familiarity with the company. Programs are designed similarly to those of non-disabled employees, but have a strong emphasis on characteristics of inclusion, such as abstracting instructions, combining instruction with demonstration, and written material.
Jackson et al. (2000)	Unspecified	UK	Survey	HR managers	SaS – Employers’ attitude and knowledge of legislation affects provision of legally required adjustments to recruitment and selection processes. TaD – Training for disability inclusiveness is a logical way to improve employer attitudes and knowledge of “Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), as well as to encourage employers to comply with DDA.
Jasper and Waldhart (2013)	Unspecified	US	Government survey (ODEP ^h )	Employers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD; there are concerns about employability, qualifications and costs of accommodations. – Employers’ attitudes toward hiring PWD depends on the size of organizations with openness toward hiring PWD increasing with company size. TaD – Practices like training for disability inclusiveness, mentoring, and short-term on-the-job assistance are widely supported and considered helpful by leisure and hospitality employers.
Kaye et al. (2011)	Unspecified	US	Survey	HR managers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. The sentiment of appraisals is affected by concerns about costs of accommodations, PWD’s performance, and fear of legal liability. TaD – Training for disability inclusiveness is the most commonly endorsed action for improving hiring and retention of PWD. Lectures only on legal requirements are insufficient regarding disability awareness. Instead, solutions for disability and accommodation issues and practical approaches are preferrable. Employed PWD are suggested to be trainers or participants in such trainings.
Kitchin et al. (1998)	Multiple	Ireland	Interviews	PWD/Supporters	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. Employers are generally ignorant and fearful of disability. TaD – Training for disability inclusiveness is suggested to educate employers in terms of the aspirations, capabilities, and productiveness of PWD.
Kosyluk et al. (2014)	Psychiatric	China/US	Experiment	Employers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. The sentiment of appraisals is affected by concerns about functional performance and stability in the workplace of persons with psychiatric disabilities. – Employers’ attitudes toward hiring persons with psychiatric disabilities improve when they have previous experience with such persons.
Kruse et al. (2018)	Multiple	US	Government survey (ACS ^i + O*Net ^c )	PWD/Employees	CaB – Earnings differential is attributed to differences in productivity but does not comprehensively explain lower pay of PWD. About 5–8% of the earning differential potentially reflects discrimination. – PWD might accept pay reductions in exchange for beneficial working conditions.
Kulkarni (2016)	Unspecified	India	Interviews	Employers	APaCM – Career development initiatives should be generic, avoiding positive or negative discrimination, and ensuring equal opportunities and accommodating all employees, with and without disabilities. – Use of the right language and terminology, sensitization programs, feedback, publication of PWDs’ success stories, and ability building/coaching sessions for PWD mentoring, accommodations, and related audits for everyone are apart from a diversity and inclusion policy critical for PWDs’ career advancement. SaS – Applicants with a disability are rated based on the same stringent hiring criteria as those without, because of the belief that no one would like differential treatment. – Rating applicants based on merit is recommended. TaD – Training for disability inclusiveness is important for PWDs’ careers.
Kulkarni and Valk (2010)	Physical	Netherlands	Interviews	PWD/HR managers	SaS – Some companies intentionally do not use disability-specific recruitment material to either avoid future stigmatization for PWD, to refrain from preference policy that PWD probably do not appreciate, or to hire based on ability. TaD – Mostly no automatic provision of mentoring programs, specific socialization activities, or skill-based training for PWD. – Provision of developmental interventions to PWD only if PWD or a manager requested them. – Most employers offer general induction or socialization activities to PWD.
Kulkarni et al. (2018)	Unspecified	India	Interviews	Employees	TaD – Systematic organization-wide changes regarding disability-inclusive practices are only achieved, if disability awareness interventions are part of a large inclusion project. – Effectiveness of disability training depends on format and the ways of implementation (e.g. PWD as instructors). – Training for disability inclusiveness in form of group seminars covering general recommendations and information about disability and accommodations is successful. – Training for disability inclusiveness is, apart from directly associating with PWD, an efficient way to widen disability awareness and to support social inclusion. – Increased awareness for PWD might inadvertently lead to singling out PWD (‘othering’).
Kwan (2020)	Down syndrome/Intellectual	China	Interviews	Employees/Social workers	SaS – Matching job duties with abilities of PWD and shorter working hours to accommodate physical needs are essential for successful employment. TaD – Training for PWD after recruitment as a helpful measure, including mini-lectures, visits, role-plays, and demonstrations, in which PWD were provided with basic vocational skills needed for the hospitality sector, practical opportunities to learn essential skills and work attitude. Also support for colleagues on how to engage and work properly with PWDs. – Mentors for PWD to help understand instructions.
Leasher et al. (2009)	Unspecified	US	Experiment	Students	SaS – Biases and stigmas affect the appraisal of PWD and their chances of being hired. Simulated applicants with disabilities elicit positive appraisal because of managers’ commitment to diversity, internal motivations to control prejudice, and openness to new experiences.
Lengnick-Hall et al. (2008)	Unspecified	US	Interviews	Employers	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. The sentiment of appraisals is affected by concerns about job qualifications and performance of PWD, fear of the unknown, and fear of legal liability. Concerns about the costs associated with hiring PWD and possible reactions of other stakeholders. – Rating PWD on their abilities, capabilities, and experience to do the job (without focusing on disability) is suggested. TaD – Vocational training and increasing disability awareness through contact with PWD and publications of success stories of companies employing PWD is suggested. – Mentoring is suggested to integrate PWD into organizations.
Louvet (2007)	Physical	France	Experiment	Students	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD, with biases about perceived poor-fit with certain jobs.
Macan and Hayes (1995)	Unspecified	US	Field study	Managers/Students	SaS – Raters’ pre-interview impressions of PWD influenced PWDs’ interview and post-interview outcomes. Tendency to rate applicants with a disability more favorably than those without a disability. – Resumes (pre-interview) in addition to interviews and interview presentations of PWD affect the evaluations of applicants’ qualifications. – Around 20% of the addressed companies asked legally non-compliant, disability-related questions.
Malo and Pagán (2012)	Unspecified	Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and UK	Government survey (ECHP ^j )	Employees	CaB – Wage differentials are affected by activity limitations due to certain disabilities. No relevant wage differential in most EU countries when PWD have little limitations in daily activities. – If wage differentials existed, they were mainly related to low productivity characteristics, not to wage discrimination. However, PWD with limitations in daily activities face low productivity and wage discrimination.
McKinney and Swartz (2019)	Multiple	South Africa	Interviews	PWD	SaS – Lack of compliance with legal standards to provide accessible and inclusive selection practices (e.g. barriers relating to medical and psychometric testing). – Interviewers are unprofessional, e.g. directing questions to interpreters and not the interviewee, or asking disability-related questions. – Advertisements, application forms, interview venues and interview questions need to be accessible and appropriate for PWD to prevent barriers to employment. Selection criteria that focus only on inherent requirements of a position and do not discriminate against PWD are suggested.
McLellan et al. (2001)	Work injury	US	Survey	Supervisors	TaD – Training for disability inclusiveness (1.5 h) focused on promoting supervisor behavior, administered by an occupational health nurse practitioner. Contents: empathic and supportive communication, job-site analysis, and accident investigation. Results: Participants had significant improvements in confidence to handle concerns regarding work injury, including facilitating communication and accommodations.
Meacham et al. (2017a)	Intellectual	Australia	Case study (Focus groups/Interviews)	Managers/PWD/Supervisors/Colleagues	TaD – Exchanges about supervision support and buddy systems are particularly important for employees with intellectual disabilities. – ‘Buddy systems’ provide on-going support to PWD and are cost-effective. – Increased awareness for PWD might inadvertently lead to singling out PWD (‘othering’).
Meacham et al. (2017b)	Intellectual	Australia	Case studies (Focus groups/Interviews/Observation)	Managers/PWD	TaD – Supervised, real-life experience in form of a film project for persons with intellectual disabilities is a successful approach to increase disability awareness. – A combination of formal and informal socialization practices (training and buddy systems) support PWDs’ workplace inclusion and development by strengthening their abilities and confidence.
Miceli et al. (2001)	Child-care-demands/HIV-positive/Wheelchair	US	Experiment	Students	SaS – Structured interviews are a valid selection tool, leading to accurate performance appraisal. However, evaluations are not connected to hiring decisions. Interview performance of PWD is seen as favorable, yet respondents do not favor hiring them. – Also biases and stigmas against certain disability types still persist. Applicants using a wheelchair are rated more negatively than equally qualified counterparts without a physical disability.
Michna et al. (2017)	Unspecified	Poland	Interviews/ Survey	PWD/Managers/Companies	SaS – Positive appraisals of PWD depends on personality (43.9%), meeting the formal requirements (32.5%), and self-presentation (21.1%). TaD – Employers aim to offer general and vocational training for PWD and listed PWDs’ development of social and personal competences (e.g. communication, working in a group, or talking on the phone) as essential. Modules for PWDs’ professional development are suggested to include psychology-focused training, self-presentation courses, foreign language courses, practical classes, and gaining hands-on vocational experience.
Miller and Werner (2005)	Physical/ Mental	US	Experiment	Students	APaCM – Boundary conditions affect appraisals where consequences for raters affect the evaluation of PWD. In case of little consequence to raters, PWDs’ appraisal was affected by socially desirable sympathy effects. Task performance ratings were better for PWD than for persons without disabilities. – Disability type does not affect contextual performance ratings by coworkers, but onset or origin of a disability does.
Nordstrom et al. (1998)	Physical	US	Experiment	Employees	SaS – Biases and stigmas affect the appraisal of PWD positively. Applicants with a disability are rated more favorably than those without a disability.
Pérez-Conesa et al. (2020)	Unspecified	Spain	Survey	HR managers, CEOs, and other managers responsible for HR	APaCM, SaS & TaD – Existence of a strategic plan to normalize disability in organizational environment, as a means to develop an inclusive culture. HR management systems do not require adaption to particularities and diversities of employees when applied inclusively. TaD – Degree of adaptation is lowest regarding professional development systems for PWD compared to other HR practices.
Premeaux (2001)	Physical/ Mental	US	Experiment	Students	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD and their chances of being hired. Disability types affect hiring decisions: negative bias against mental disabilities – persons with mental disabilities are less likely to be hired than”} persons with physical disabilities. – The sentiment of appraisals is also affected by interdependence for the evaluator. PWD are recommended for hire less frequently when the position is in close physical proximity to the evaluator, ostensibly as close proximity implies higher interdependence.
Reilly et al. (2006)	Multiple	US	Experiment	Students	SaS – Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD. Disabilities’ origin matters, with applicants with a history of depression or substance abuse being rated differently than those with cancer. – Appraisals suggested to be based on job-relevant characteristics and abilities irrespective of the disability’s nature, degree, or severity. – Specific job-relevant benchmarks, validated structures, and objective standards are important to reduce bias in selection processes of PWD. Disability stigma can be removed through a structured interview.
Rudstam et al. (2013)	Unspecified	US	Interviews/Survey	Employees	TaD – Disability inclusiveness training administered using a combination of in-person and online training designed to impact employer knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors/practices around hiring, accommodating, and retaining PWD in the workplace. Contents include specific consideration of disability as diversity, perspective taking exercises, assessment of organization inclusiveness and strategizing for change. This results in changes in attitudes, knowledge, and behavioral intentions between pre- and post-training (immediately). Individual action, teaching others, building partnerships, and changing organizational policies or practices (long-term) are important.
Schur et al. (2009)	Unspecified	US	Government survey (NBER ^k )	Employees/Companies	APaCM – Providing instrumental advice or psychosocial support through peers is relevant for PWDs’ promotion. There is a relative lack of informal training that, in turn, should be expected to lead to fewer promotions. CaB – PWD are low on base pay, including overtime and benefits. PWD are eligible for merit-based pay and bonuses based on group or department performance. TaD – PWD less likely participate in formal, company-sponsored training and mentoring programs than persons without disabilities. If formal training was received, the hours of training are not significantly affected by disability status.
Shantz et al. (2018)	Unspecified	UK	Government survey (WERS ^l )	PWD/Employees	CaB – PWD may feel that individual variable pay is not an equal treatment policy, leading to pay dissatisfaction (especially if trust in management is low, or if disability-related policy and practices are not jointly implemented with an effective management policy). – Type of evaluation of variable pay – subjective (e.g. performance appraisal) vs. objective (e.g. piece-rate pay) – may change PWDs’ reaction to it.
Vedeler (2014)	Mobility	Norway/US	Interviews	PWD	SaS – PWD can experience discrimination, uncertainty, or recognition in interviews. Appraisal of PWD is based on qualifications, with PWD on par with persons without disabilities. Biases and stigmas drive the appraisal of PWD and their chances of being hired; there are misconceptions about what constitutes disability.
Villanueva-Flores et al. (2015)	Physical	Spain	Survey	PWD	CaB – PWD perceive their compensation as being not based on the position’s degree of difficulty, complexity, or responsibility, leading to dissatisfaction. Anti-discrimination and diversity management policies are suggested, as PWD perceived pay to be unequal and discriminatory.
Wilson-Kovacs et al. (2008)	Physical	UK	Interviews	PWD	APaCM – Lack of support at formal and informal levels, limiting PWDs’ promotion opportunities. Career-enhancing practices, like networks, mentoring, and feedback, are absent and PWDs’ learning opportunities that drive career progression are limited.
Woodhams and Corby (2007)	Unspecified	UK	Survey	HR managers	SaS – Disability equality practices including standardization of entry procedures, like monitoring PWD during recruitment, review of resourcing documentation (such as job/person specifications), medical standards, and reviewing interview procedures increased in usage and led to increased employment of PWD. A written equal opportunity policy that mentions disability is not a significant practice measure in improving PWDs’ employment. – Move toward practices of standardization by, for example, formulating policy guidelines and reviewing recruitment procedures for differences in treatment. TaD – Organizations increased their efforts not only to ensure disability equality, but also equal treatment of PWD. – Training for disability inclusiveness is a successful disability equality practice that increased in usage.

Notes: HR: human resources; NBGH: National Business Group on health members; PWD: people with disabilities; SHRM: Society for Human Resource Management.

a This table only reports on the sample and findings related to our objective to discover HR practices proven to be successful or recommended, as well as related areas of concern or uncertainty.

b Survey of income and program participation – 1996, 2000, 2004 (US).

c Occupational information network.

d Medical expenditure panel survey – 1999 (US).

e Panel study of income dynamics – 1968–1993 (US).

f Survey of income and program participation – 1984, 1993 (US).

g Participation and activity limitation survey – 2006 (Canada).

h Office of disability employment policy survey of employer perspectives on the employment of persons with disabilities – 2008 (US).

i American community survey – 2008–2014 (US).

j European community household panel – 1995–2001.

k National Bureau of economic research shared capitalism research project – 2001–2006 (US).

l Workplace employee relations survey – 2011 (UK).

Table 3. Overview of studies (n = 74).

	Count 1990–2008 (past ADA)	Count 2009–2020 (past ADA Amendment Act)	Total count
Methodology
Qualitative	6	12	18
Quantitative	34	19	53
Mixed methods	1	2	3
Addressed HR practices
Staffing and selection	31	20	51
Training and development	8	19	27
(Performance) appraisal, promotion, and career management	4	5	9
Compensation and Benefits	5	7	12
Disability type(s) studied ranked by occurrence
Unspecified	13	19	32
Disability types	18	9	27
Physical	9	5	14
Physical	(4)	(2)	(6)
Work injury	(3)		(3)
Hearing/Vision	(1)		(1)
Mobility		(1)	(1)
Neurological	(1)		(1)
Physical/Sensory		(1)	(1)
Sensory		(1)	(1)
Physical/Mental (Psychiatric)	6	0	6
Mental (Psychiatric)	3	1	4
Intellectual (incl. Down syndrome/Intellectual)	0	3	3
Multiple types of disability	7	4	11
Distinct conditions	3	1	4
Asperger’s syndrome/Spinal cord injury		(1)
Childcare-demands/HIV-positive/Wheelchair	(1)
Dyslexia	(1)
Obesity/Wheelchair	(1)

Table 4. Overview of addressed HR practices.

	HR practices
	SaS	TaD	APaCM	CaB
Disability type(s) studied ranked by occurrence
Unspecified	25	19	4	4
Disability types	16	6	3	5
Physical	7	3	2	4
Physical	(4)	(1)	(1)	(1)
Work injury		(1)		(2)
Mobility	(1)
Physical/Sensory	(1)	(1)
Hearing/Vision			(1)
Neurological	(1)
Sensory				(1)
Physical/Mental (Psychiatric)	5	0	1	0
Intellectual (incl. Down syndrome/Intellectual)	1	3	0	0
Mental (Psychiatric)	3	0	0	1
Multiple types of disability	7	2	1	3
Distinct conditions	3	0	1	0
Asperger’s syndrome/Spinal cord injury	(1)
Childcare-demands/HIV-positive/Wheelchair	(1)
Dyslexia			(1)
Obesity/Wheelchair	(1)
Research method(s) ranked by occurrence
Qualitative	14	11	3	0
Quantitative	18	3	3	12
Mixed methods	2	2	0	0

Table 5. Main findings, related references and derived practical implications.

Category	Main findings	References	Practical implications regarding the design of inclusive HR measures
Selection and Staffing	HR practices proven to be successful or recommended		Standardized systems for selection appraisal. Selection appraisal based on job analyses. Structured observation methods. Multiple interviewers. Training for disability inclusiveness ^a Aim: positively affecting PWDs’ appraisals and related employment decisions. Content: disability issues, accommodation, legal frameworks, stigma, prejudices, procedural justice.
	• Intentional lack of disability-specific recruitment material to avoid future stigmatization, to refrain from preference policy, or to hire based on ability.	Kulkarni and Valk (2010)
	•  (Structured) interviews as selection practices, since they allow… • Accurate, fair and impartial evaluations of PWD. • Assessment of qualifications, job match, and discussion of potential accommodations and work conditions.	Brecher et al. (2006); Hayes et al. (1995); Huang and Chen (2015); Miceli et al. (2001); Reilly et al. (2006) Huang and Chen (2015)
	• Fair interview processes through… • Multiple interviewers. • Note-taking and behaviorally anchored rating scales.	Brecher et al. (2006) Brecher et al. (2006); Reilly et al. (2006)
	• Resumes (pre-interview) in addition to interviews to support evaluations of applicants’ qualifications.	Macan and Hayes (1995)
	• Personal references verify information and allow clarity about abilities, job history and individual characteristics (mainly for unskilled positions).	Huang and Chen (2015)
	• Appraisals based on job-relevant characteristics and abilities irrespective of the disability’s nature, degree or severity.	Bengisu and Balta (2011); Brecher et al. (2006); Gilbride et al. (2003); Gröschl (2013); Huang and Chen (2015); Kulkarni (2016); Kwan (2020); Lengnick-Hall et al. (2008); McKinney and Swartz (2019); Reilly et al. (2006); Vedeler (2012)
	Areas of concern or uncertainty
	• Process of evaluation – hiring criteria: Appraisal affected by subjective norms, stigma or stereotypes.	Ameri et al. (2018); Bell and Klein (2001); Brecher et al. (2006); Bricout and Bentley (2000); Bruyère et al. (2004, 2006); Cesare et al. (1990); Chan et al. (2010); Chi and Qu (2003, 2004); Dalgin and Bellini (2008); Diksa and Rogers (1996); Erickson et al. (2014); Fraser et al. (2011); Gouvier et al. (1991; 2003); Gröschl (2007); Hand and Tryssenaar (2006); Harcourt et al. (2005); Hazer and Bedell (2010); Hebl and Kleck (2002); Hernandez et al. (2012); Jasper and Waldhart (2013); Kaye et al. (2011); Kitchin et al. (1998); Kosyluk et al. (2013); Leasher et al. (2009); Lengnick-Hall et al. (2008); Louvet (2007); Macan and Hayes (1995); Miceli et al. (2001); Nordstrom et al. (1998); Premeaux (2001); Reilly et al. (2006); Vedeler (2012)
	• Application forms/resumes as stand-alone practices.	Huang and Chen (2015)
	• Legally non-compliant questioning (e.g. health- or disability-related).	Harcourt et al. (2005); Macan and Hayes (1995); McKinney and Swartz (2019)
	• Provision of required accommodations to recruitment processes.	Bruyère et al. (2004; 2006); Jackson et al. (2000)
Training and development	HR practices proven to be successful or recommended		Measures based on motives and interest in (vocational) development.
	• Formal and informal training initiatives for PWD.
	• Mentoring.	Bruyère et al. (2004; 2006); Erickson et al. (2014); Gröschl (2007); Jasper and Waldhart (2013); Kulkarni and Valk (2010); Kwan (2020); Lengnick-Hall et al. (2008); Meacham et al. (2017a, b); Schur et al. (2009)
	• Induction and socialization activities.	Kulkarni and Valk (2010); Bengisu and Balta (2011); Meacham et al. (2017b)
	• Orientation procedures and training on-the-job. Programs’ design includes abstracting instructions and combining instruction with demonstration and written material.	Huang and Chen (2015)
	• Job training program. Programs’ design includes mini-lectures, visits, role-plays, and demonstrations.	Kwan (2020)
	• Short-term on-the-job assistance with outside job coach.	Jasper and Waldhart (2013)
	• Psychology-focused training, self-presentation courses, foreign language courses, practical classes and hands-on vocational experience. [Relevant for (career) development.]	Michna et al. (2017)
	• Frequently individualized training programs and objective, factual and immediate feedback.	Gröschl (2013)
	• Training for disability inclusiveness (e.g. reduction of discriminatory treatment; enhanced knowledge regarding accommodation and legal frameworks).	Bengisu and Balta (2011); Bruyère et al. (2004, 2006); Chan et al. (2010); DeCarvalho-Freitas and Stathi (2014); Erickson et al. (2014); Gröschl (2007); Jackson et al. (2000); Jasper and Waldhart (2013); Kaye et al. (2011); Kitchin et al. (1998); Kulkarni (2016); Kulkarni et al. (2018); Lengnick-Hall et al. (2013); McLellan et al. (2001); Rudstam et al. (2013); Woodhams and Corby (2007)
	Areas of concern
	• Mostly no automatic provision of programs like mentoring.	Kulkarni and Valk (2010)
	• Boundary conditions regarding training for disability inclusiveness.
	• Effectiveness of disability training depends on format and the ways of implementation (e.g. PWD as instructors).	Kulkarni et al. (2018)
	• Systematic organization-wide changes only achieved if interventions are part of a large inclusion project.	Kulkarni et al. (2018)
	• ‘Othering’: inadvertently singling out PWD.	Kulkarni et al. (2018); Meacham et al. (2017a)
(Performance) appraisal, promotion, and career management	HR practices proven to be successful or recommended		Standardized (and alternative) systems for performance evaluation. ^b Management by objective-systems. 360-degree peer assessments. Discussing employees’ career aspirations and related expectations. Provision of Career path options like downshifting or lateral movements.
	• Fair appraisals through standardization.	Colella et al. (1998)
	• Informal training/mentoring: instrumental advice or psychosocial support through peers expected to affect PWDs’ promotion.	Kulkarni (2016); Schur et al. (2009); Wilson-Kovacs et al. (2008)
	• Networks, role models and specifically tailored programs.	Wilson-Kovacs et al. (2008)
	• Constructive performance feedback.	Kulkarni (2016); Wilson-Kovacs et al. (2008)
	• Accommodation (audits) and disability awareness programs for all employees, additional coaching and ability building training for PWD.	Kulkarni (2016)
	• Career development initiatives should be generic.	Kulkarni (2016)
	Areas of concern or uncertainty
	• Appraisal and related reactions do not reflect PWDs’ performance.
	• Favorable and adverse appraisals on current performance.	(see ‘Selection and staffing: Evaluation and hiring criteria’ for references).
	• Appraisals on future performance affected by stigma and stereotypes.	Bordieri and Drehmer (1997); Colella and Varma (1999); Miller and Werner (2005)
	• Boundary conditions (e.g. poor-fit situations) affect appraisals.	Colella et al. (1998); Miller and Werner (2005)
	• Career-enhancing practices are absent.	Wilson-Kovacs et al. (2008)
Compensation and benefits	Areas of concern or uncertainty		Reviewing existing compensation structures to discover potential deficiencies. Merit-based/team-performance-based appraisal to avoid prejudiced evaluations.
	•  (Reduced) compensation linked to some extent to discrimination.	Baldwin and Choe (2014); Baldwin and Marcus (2007); Boden and Galizzi (2003); DeLeire (2001); Gunderson and Hyatt (1996); Gunderson and Lee (2016); Kruse et al. (2018); Malo and Pagán (2012); Villanueva-Flores et al. (2015)
	• PWDs’ compensation not linked to position’s degree of difficulty, complexity, or responsibility.	Villanueva-Flores et al. (2015)
	• Pay reduction in exchange for - beneficial job characteristics. - accommodations.	Kruse et al. (2018); Gunderson and Hyatt (1996); Kruse et al. (2018)
	• PWD eligible for merit-based pay and bonuses based on group performance.	Schur et al. (2009)
	• Variable pay experienced as negative.	Shantz et al. (2018)

a Practical implication applies to all dimensions.

b Practical implication applies to the dimensions TaD, APaCM and CaB.

Ameri, M., Schur, L., Ady, M., Bentley, F. S., McKay, P., & Kruse, D. (2018). The disability employment puzzle: A field experiment on employer hiring behavior. ILR Review, 71(2), 329–364. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793917717474

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Araten-Bergman, T. (2016). Managers’ hiring intentions and the actual hiring of qualified workers with disabilities. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(14), 1510–1530. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1128466

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Baldwin, M. L., & Choe, C. (2014). Wage discrimination against workers with sensory disabilities. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 53(1), 101–124. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/irel.12048

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Baldwin, M. L., & Marcus, S. C. (2007). Labor market outcomes of persons with mental disorders. Industrial Relations, 46(3), 481–510. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-232X.2007.00478.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bell, B., & Klein, K. J. (2001). Effects of disability, gender, and job level on ratings of job applicants. Rehabilitation Psychology, 46(3), 229–246. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.46.3.229

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bengisu, M., & Balta, S. (2011). Employment of the workforce with disabilities in the hospitality industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(1), 35–57. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2010.499172

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Boden, L. I., & Galizzi, M. (2003). Income losses of women and men injured at work. The Journal of Human Resources, 38(3), 722–757. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/1558774

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bordieri, J. E., & Drehmer, D. E. (1997). Work life for employees with disabilities: Recommendations for promotion. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 40(3), 181–191.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brecher, E., Bragger, J., & Kutcher, E. (2006). The structured interview: Reducing biases toward job applicants with physical disabilities. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 18(3), 155–170. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-006-9014-y

 Google Scholar

Bricout, J., & Bentley, K. (2000). Disability status and perceptions of employability by employers. Social Work Research, 24(2), 87–95. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/24.2.87

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bruyère, S. M., Erickson, W. A., & van Looy, S. A. (2004). Comparative study of workplace policy and practices contributing to disability nondiscrimination. Rehabilitation Psychology, 49(1), 28–38. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.49.1.28

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bruyère, S. M., Erickson, W. A., & van Looy, S. A. (2006). The impact of business size on employer ADA response. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 49(4), 194–206. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/00343552060490040101

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cesare, S., Tannenbaum, R., & Dalessio, A. (1990). Interviewers’ decisions related to applicant handicap type and rater empathy. Human Performance, 3(3), 157–171. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup0303_2

 Google Scholar

Chan, F., Strauser, D., Maher, P., Lee, E., Jones, R., & Johnson, E. T. (2010). Demand-side factors related to employment of people with disabilities: A survey of employers in the Midwest region of the United States. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(4), 412–419. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-010-9252-6

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Charles, K. K. (2003). The longitudinal structure of earnings losses among work-limited disabled workers. Journal of Human Resources, 38(3), 618–646. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.XXXVIII.3.618

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chi, C. G.-Q., & Qu, H. (2003). Integrating persons with disabilities into the work force: A study on employment of persons with disabilities in foodservice industry. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 4(4), 59–83. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1300/J149v04n04_04

 Google Scholar

Colella, A. J., & Varma, A. (1999). Disability-job fit stereotypes and the evaluation of persons with disabilities at work. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 9(2), 79–95. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021362019948

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Colella, A. J., DeNisi, A. S., & Varma, A. (1998). The impact of ratee’s disability on performance judgments and choice as partner: The role of disability-job fit stereotypes and interdependence of rewards. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 102–111. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.1.102

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dalgin, R. S., & Bellini, J. (2008). Invisible disability disclosure in an employment interview: Impact on employers’ hiring decisions and views of employability. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 52(1), 6–15. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355207311311

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

DeCarvalho-Freitas, M. N., & Stathi, S. (2017). Reducing workplace bias toward persons with disabilities with the use of imagined contact. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(5), 256–266. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12435

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

DeLeire, T. (2001). Changes in wage discrimination against persons with disabilities: 1984-93. The Journal of Human Resources, 36(1), 144–158. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/3069673

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Diksa, E., & Rogers, E. S. (1996). Employer concerns about hiring persons with psychiatric disability: Results of the employer attitude questionnaire. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 40(1), 31–44.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Erickson, W. A., von Schrader, S., Bruyère, S. M., & van Looy, S. A. (2014). The employment environment: Employer perspectives, policies and practices regarding the employment of persons with disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 57(4), 195–208. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355213509841

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fraser, R., Ajzen, I., Johnson, K., Hebert, J., & Chan, F. (2011). Understanding employers’ hiring intention in relation to qualified workers with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 35(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-2011-0548

 Google Scholar

Gilbride, D., Stensrud, R., Vandergoot, D., & Golden, K. (2003). Identification of the characteristics of work environments and employers open to hiring and accommodating persons with disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 46(3), 130–137. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/00343552030460030101

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gouvier, W. D., Steiner, D. D., Jackson, W. T., Schlater, D., & Rain, J. (1991). Employment discrimination against handicapped job candidates: An analog study of the effects of neurological causation, visibility of handicap and public contact. Rehabilitation Psychology, 36(2), 121–129. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079077

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gouvier, W. D., Sytsma-Jordan, S., & Mayville, S. (2003). Patterns of discrimination in hiring job applicants with disabilities: The role of disability type, job complexity and public contact. Rehabilitation Psychology, 48(3), 175–181. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.48.3.175

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gröschl, S. (2007). An exploration of HR policies and practices affecting the integration of persons with disabilities in the hotel industry in major Canadian tourism destinations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(3), 666–686. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2006.05.007

 Google Scholar

Gröschl, S. (2013). Presumed incapable: Exploring the validity of negative judgments about persons with disabilities and their employability in hotel operations. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(2), 114–123. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965512453082

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gunderson, M., & Hyatt, D. (1996). Do injured workers pay for reasonable accommodation? ILR Review, 50(1), 92–104. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/001979399605000106

 Google Scholar

Gunderson, M., & Lee, B. (2016). Pay discrimination against persons with disabilities: Canadian evidence from PALS. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(14), 1531–1549. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1072106

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Habeck, R., Hunt, A., Rachel, C. H., Kregel, J., & Chan, F. (2010). Employee retention and integrated disability management practices as demand side factors. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(4), 443–455. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-009-9225-9

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hand, C., & Tryssenaar, J. (2006). Small business employers’ views on hiring individuals with mental illness. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 29(3), 166–173. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2975/29.2006.166.173

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Harcourt, M., Lam, H., & Harcourt, S. (2005). Discriminatory practices in hiring: Institutional and rational economic perspectives. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(11), 2113–2132. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500315125

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hayes, T. L., & Macan, T. H. (1997). Comparison of the factors influencing interviewer hiring decisions for applicants with and those without disabilities. Journal of Business and Psychology, 11(3), 357–371. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02195899

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hayes, T. L., Citera, M., Brady, L. M., & Jenkins, N. M. (1995). Staffing for persons with disabilities. What is “fair” and “job related”? Public Personnel Management, 24(4), 413–427. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/009102609502400401

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hazer, J. T., & Bedell, K. V. (2000). Effects of seeking accommodation and disability on pre-employment evaluations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(6), 1201–1223. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02517.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hebl, M. R., & Kleck, R. E. (2002). Acknowledging one’s stigma in the interview setting: Effective strategy or liability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(2), 223–249. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00214.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hernandez, B., Chen, B., Araten-Bergman, T., Levy, J., Kramer, M., & Rimmerman, A. (2012). Workers with disabilities: Exploring the hiring intentions of nonprofit and for-profit employers. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 24(4), 237–249. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-011-9187-x

 Google Scholar

Huang, I. C., & Chen, R. K. (2015). Employing persons with disabilities in the Taiwanese workplace. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 59(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355214558938

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jackson, C., Furnham, A., & Willen, K. (2000). Employer willingness to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act regarding staff selection in the United Kingdom. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(1), 119–129. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1348/096317900166912

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jasper, C. R., & Waldhart, P. (2013). Employer attitudes on hiring employees with disabilities in the leisure and hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(4), 577–594. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111311322934

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kaye, H. S., Jans, L. H., & Jones, E. C. (2011). Why don’t employers hire and retain workers with disabilities? Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(4), 526–536. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-011-9302-8

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kitchin, R., Shirlow, P., & Shuttleworth, I. (1998). On the margins: Disabled person’s experience of employment in Donegal, West Ireland. Disability & Society, 13(5), 785–806. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599826515

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kosyluk, K. A., Corrigan, P. W., & Landis, R. S. (2014). Employer stigma as a mediator between past and future hiring behavior. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 57(2), 102–108. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355213496284

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kruse, D., Schur, L., Rogers, S., & Ameri, M. (2018). Why do workers with disabilities earn less? Occupational job requirements and disability discrimination. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 56(4), 798–834. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12257

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kulkarni, M. (2016). Organizational career development initiatives for employees with a disability. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(14), 1662–1679. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1137611

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kulkarni, M., & Valk, R. (2010). Don’t ask, don’t tell: Two views on human resource practices for persons with disabilities. IIMB Management Review, 22(4), 137–146. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2010.08.001

 Google Scholar

Kulkarni, M., Gopakumar, K. V., & Patel, S. (2018). How effective are disability sensitization workshops? Employee Relations, 40(1), 58–74. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-08-2016-0165

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kwan, C. K. (2020). Socially responsible human resource practices to improve the employability of persons with disabilities. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1768

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Leasher, M. K., Miller, C. E., & Gooden, M. P. (2009). Rater effects and attitudinal barriers affecting persons with disabilities in personnel selection. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(9), 2236–2274. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00523.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lengnick-Hall, M. L., Gaunt, P. M., & Kulkarni, M. (2008). Overlooked and underutilized: Persons with disabilities are an untapped human resource. Human Resource Management, 47(2), 255–273. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20211

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Louvet, E. (2007). Social judgment toward job applicants with disabilities: Perception of personal qualities and competences. Rehabilitation Psychology, 52(3), 297–303. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.52.3.297

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Macan, T. H., & Hayes, T. L. (1995). Both sides of the employment interview interaction: Perceptions of interviewers and applicants with disabilities. Rehabilitation Psychology, 40(4), 261–278. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.40.4.261

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Malo, M. A., & Pagán, R. (2012). Wage differentials and disability across Europe: Discrimination and/or lower productivity? International Labour Review, 151(1–2), 43–60. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2012.00134.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McKinney, E. L., & Swartz, L. (2019). Employment integration barriers. Experiences of persons with disabilities. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32, 2298–2320. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1579749

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McLellan, R. K., Pransky, G., & Shaw, W. S. (2001). Disability management training for supervisors: A pilot intervention program. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 11(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016652124410

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Meacham, H., Cavanagh, J., Shaw, A., & Bartram, T. (2017a). HRM practices that support the employment and social inclusion of workers with an intellectual disability. Personnel Review, 46(8), 1475–1492. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2016-0105

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Meacham, H., Cavanagh, J., Shaw, A., & Bartram, T. (2017b). Innovation programs at the workplace for workers with an intellectual disability: Two case studies in large Australian organisations. Personnel Review, 46(7), 1381–1396. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2016-0214

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Miceli, N., Harvey, M., & Buckley, M. (2001). Potential discrimination in structured employment interviews. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 13(1), 15–38. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014430107659

 Google Scholar

Michna, A., Kmieciak, R., & Burzyńska‐Ptaszek, K. (2017). Job preferences and expectations of disabled persons and small and medium-sized enterprises in Poland: Implications for disabled person’s professional development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 28(3), 299–336. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21280

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Miller, B. K., & Werner, S. (2005). Factors influencing the inflation of task performance ratings for workers with disabilities and contextual performance ratings for their coworkers. Human Performance, 18(3), 309–329. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1803_5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nordstrom, C., Huffaker, B. J., & Williams, K. (1998). When physical disabilities are not liabilities: The role of applicant and interviewer characteristics on employment interview outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(4), 283–306. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01707.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pérez-Conesa, F. J., Romeo, M., & Yepes-Baldó, M. (2020). Labour inclusion of persons with disabilities in Spain: The effect of policies and human resource management systems. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(6), 785–804. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1380681

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Premeaux, S. F. (2001). Impact of applicant disability on selection: The role of disability type, physical attractiveness and proximity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(2), 291–298. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011117402209

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reilly, N. P., Bocketti, S. P., Maser, S. A., & Wennet, C. L. (2006). Benchmarks affect perceptions of prior disability in a structured interview. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(4), 489–500. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-005-9005-2

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rudstam, H., Hittleman, M., Pi, S., & Gower, W. S. (2013). Bridging the knowing-doing gap: Researching a new approach to disability and employment programming. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 39(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-130641

 Google Scholar

Schur, L., Kruse, D., Blasi, J., & Blanck, P. (2009). Is disability disabling in all workplaces? Workplace disparities and corporate culture. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 48(3), 381–410. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-232X.2009.00565.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shantz, A., Wang, J., & Malik, A. (2018). Disability status, individual variable pay and pay satisfaction: Does relational and institutional trust make a difference? Human Resource Management, 57(1), 365–380. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21845

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Villanueva-Flores, M., Valle-Cabrera, R., & Ramón-Jerónimo, M. A. (2015). Perceived compensation discrimination against physically disabled persons in Andalusia. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(17), 2248–2265. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.985323

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wilson-Kovacs, D., Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., & Rabinovich, A. (2008). Just because you can get a wheelchair in the building doesn’t necessarily mean that you can still participate: Barriers to the career advancement of disabled professionals. Disability & Society, 23(7), 705–717. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590802469198

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Woodhams, C., & Corby, S. (2007). Then and now: Disability legislation and employers’ practices in the UK. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 45(3), 556–580. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2007.00628.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar