Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Clinical competence
35% weight
Check depth in pure-tone and speech audiometry, tympanometry, ABR, OAE and real-ear measurement; ask which fitting software (Phonak Target, Oticon Genie) they use daily.
Evidence to listen for
Command of the procedures, anatomy, and equipment the role requires
Holds current registration or certification
Knows normal from abnormal and what to do about each
Recognises when a case is outside their scope
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Unsafe knowledge gaps; registration missing or lapsed.
2
Needs Improvement
Knowledge gaps that would affect patient care.
3
Satisfactory
Competent for standard cases; needs support on complex ones.
4
Very Good
Strong clinical knowledge; safe and reliable across the usual range.
5
Excellent
Names masking rules, REM verification targets such as NAL-NL2 or DSL, and describes complex fittings including CROS or cochlear implant mapping.
02
Evaluation factor
Patient safety and protocol
30% weight
Probe infection control for otoscopy and cerumen management, red-flag referral criteria for sudden hearing loss or unilateral tinnitus, and adherence to HIPAA and scope-of-practice limits.
Evidence to listen for
Follows identification, infection control, and documentation protocol without prompting
Can describe an error or near miss and what they did
Escalates deterioration early
Treats protocol as protection rather than bureaucracy
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Casual about protocol; would not report an error.
2
Needs Improvement
Inconsistent protocol adherence; slow to escalate.
3
Satisfactory
Follows protocol reliably; documentation sometimes thin.
4
Very Good
Protocol is instinctive; escalates early and reports honestly.
5
Excellent
Cites specific referral triggers to ENT, documents contraindications before impressions, and recalls a case where they halted a procedure on safety grounds.
03
Evaluation factor
Patient communication
20% weight
Assess how they counsel first-time hearing aid users, manage unrealistic expectations, and handle pediatric caregivers or older adults resistant to amplification and cost discussions.
Evidence to listen for
Explains a procedure to an anxious or confused patient
Handles distress, pain, or refusal without losing control of the interaction
Respects privacy and dignity in practice, not just in principle
Works with families and carers
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Dismissive of patients; no bedside awareness.
2
Needs Improvement
Task-focused; struggles with distressed patients.
3
Satisfactory
Adequate rapport; less confident in difficult interactions.
4
Very Good
Calm, clear, and respectful with anxious or difficult patients.
5
Excellent
Describes structured counselling using COSI or APHAB goals, adapts language for children and families, and reports measurable follow-up return rates.
04
Evaluation factor
Working in a clinical team
15% weight
Look for coordination with ENT physicians, speech-language pathologists, school IEP teams and manufacturer reps; ask how they hand off tricky cases or supervise audiology externs.
Evidence to listen for
Hands over cleanly and completely
Challenges a colleague when patient safety requires it
Takes direction from clinicians without deferring blindly
Handles shift work and pressure without becoming difficult to work with
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Poor handover; cannot work in a clinical team.
2
Needs Improvement
Handover gaps; avoids raising concerns about colleagues.
3
Satisfactory
Reliable team member; handover adequate.
4
Very Good
Clean handovers and willing to speak up on safety.
5
Excellent
Gives concrete examples of joint case management with ENT or early intervention teams, plus mentoring of externs or hearing instrument specialists.
Put this rubric to work
Score every candidate against the same standard
Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.
