Interview scorecard template

Audiologist interview scorecard

Evaluate Audiologist candidates across 4 weighted areas: clinical competence, patient safety and protocol, patient communication, and working in a clinical team. Clinical competence leads at 35%, so 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. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
healthcare clinicalaudiologycochlear implantshearing aidstympanometry
TL;DR
For clinical competence, look for evidence the candidate names masking rules, REM verification targets such as NAL-NL2 or DSL, and describes complex fittings including CROS or cochlear implant mapping. For patient safety and protocol, look for evidence the candidate cites specific referral triggers to ENT, documents contraindications before impressions, and recalls a case where they halted a procedure on safety grounds. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

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.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Audiologist

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    How many years of experience do you have as an audiologist?

  2. 02

    Do you have experience working with both paediatric and older patients?

  3. 03

    Do you have experience with auditory processing disorders?

  4. 04

    What process do you follow for diagnosing a hearing or balance disorder?

  5. 05

    Do you have experience performing vestibular testing?

See the complete Audiologist question set
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.

Explore AI Scorecards