Should managers use typing and processing-speed benchmarks at work?
A practical guide for managers on using HumanBenchmark.now typing and processing-speed tests at work, covering device effects, accessibility, practice bias, fairness, and strict boundaries against using casual scores for hiring or discipline.
You are a manager who has noticed that some team members type faster or react quicker than others. A free online tool such as HumanBenchmark.now offers typing-speed and processing-speed benchmarks that seem like an easy way to measure productivity potential. Before you ask your team to take these tests, you need to understand what the scores actually mean, what can distort them, and whether they are fair to use in the workplace.
What HumanBenchmark.now measures
HumanBenchmark.now is a free website that offers 33 cognitive tests, including Typing Speed and Processing Speed. According to the site, the Typing Speed test reports words per minute (WPM) with a global average of 52 WPM. The Processing Speed test measures symbol-identification throughput and reports a global average of 1450 milliseconds. The site states that results are instant, no account is required, and most tests take under five minutes.
These tests are based on established cognitive paradigms, but the site itself notes that averages reflect published population norms and aggregate site data, and may vary with device and test conditions. This is a critical point for any manager considering using these benchmarks.
Device and environment effects on scores
The same person will score differently on different devices. A typing test taken on a mechanical keyboard with full-size keys will yield a different result than the same test on a laptop membrane keyboard or a tablet touchscreen. Processing speed depends on screen refresh rate, mouse or trackpad responsiveness, and even the browser being used. The site does not control for these variables, and its published averages are not adjusted for device type.
If you ask employees to take the test on their own work machines, you are introducing uncontrolled variation. An employee with an older laptop or a slow internet connection may score lower not because of slower cognitive processing, but because of hardware limitations. The CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) notes that fatigue can slow reaction times and reduce attention, and many workplace factors such as stress, demanding tasks, or working in hot environments contribute to fatigue. A test taken at the end of a long shift will not reflect a worker’s baseline ability.
Accessibility and disability considerations
Using typing speed as a benchmark can directly disadvantage people with certain disabilities. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued guidance on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the use of software and algorithms to assess job applicants and employees. The EEOC states that employers must ensure that hiring technologies do not discriminate against people with disabilities, including conditions such as cerebral palsy, mobility disabilities, and intellectual disabilities.
The U.S. Department of Justice (ADA.gov) further explains that algorithms and artificial intelligence used in hiring can lead to unlawful discrimination. For example, a typing test may screen out a qualified individual with a motor disability who cannot type quickly but can perform the job’s essential functions with a reasonable accommodation. The obligation to avoid disability discrimination applies to both public and private employers. HumanBenchmark.now does not offer accessibility accommodations such as voice input, alternative input methods, or adjustable time limits. Using its raw scores without accommodation could put your organisation at legal risk.
Practice effects and fairness
Cognitive test scores improve with practice. HumanBenchmark.now allows users to take tests repeatedly and track progress over time with a free account. An employee who has taken the typing test ten times will score higher than a colleague who takes it for the first time, even if their underlying ability is identical. This practice effect means that one-off scores are not a reliable measure of a person’s typical performance.
If you use these benchmarks to compare employees, you are comparing practice levels, not ability. The site’s own dashboard shows average improvement over 30 days, indicating that scores are not stable traits. Managers should also consider that some employees may have more time and motivation to practice at home, introducing socioeconomic bias.
How to run a fair test protocol
If you decide to use HumanBenchmark.now as a developmental or self-assessment tool, follow a transparent protocol that minimises unfairness. First, require all participants to use the same device model, operating system, keyboard, and internet connection in a controlled environment. Second, allow a standardised warm-up period of two practice attempts before recording a score. Third, test at the same time of day for all participants, preferably early in a shift when fatigue is lowest. Fourth, document the accommodation process: inform employees that alternative assessment methods are available upon request, and consult with your human resources or legal team to ensure compliance with local disability discrimination laws. Finally, use the scores only for voluntary self-improvement or team training, never for performance evaluation, discipline, or hiring decisions.
Strict boundary: never use casual scores for hiring or discipline
The EEOC and DOJ guidance is clear: hiring technologies that screen out individuals with disabilities must be job-related and consistent with business necessity, and employers must provide reasonable accommodations. A free online test that takes five minutes and has no accommodation options does not meet this standard. Using HumanBenchmark.now scores to reject a job applicant or discipline an employee could expose your organisation to liability for disability discrimination.
Even for internal benchmarking, the scores are too noisy. Fatigue, device differences, practice, and accessibility issues mean that a low score may reflect a bad testing environment, not a lack of ability. The NIOSH research on fatigue reinforces that reaction times and attention fluctuate based on work conditions, not just inherent skill.
HumanBenchmark.now is a useful tool for personal curiosity and cognitive training. It is not a validated workplace assessment. Managers who want to measure typing speed or processing ability for genuine job requirements should use professional, validated tests that include normative data, accommodation options, and legal compliance documentation. Keep the free online benchmarks for your own self-improvement, and keep them out of your performance management system.
Practical checklist for managers
- Assess job relevance: Is fast typing or rapid symbol processing truly essential for the role, or just convenient?
- Check legal requirements: Consult your legal team about disability discrimination laws applicable in your jurisdiction.
- Control the test environment: Use identical hardware, software, and testing conditions for all participants.
- Allow practice: Give everyone at least two untimed practice attempts before recording a score.
- Offer accommodations: Provide alternative assessment methods for employees with disabilities or injuries.
- Limit use: Use scores only for voluntary self-development, never for hiring, promotion, or discipline.
- Document everything: Keep records of the protocol, accommodations offered, and how scores were used.
Sources and further reading
- HumanBenchmark.now typing and processing-speed tests
- EEOC: Artificial Intelligence and the ADA
- U.S. DOJ/ADA.gov: AI and disability discrimination in hiring
- CDC/NIOSH: Fatigue and Work
Product features and terms can change; check the provider's current information before using a service for workplace material.