Revised 2011 by C.D. Johnson. Based on Functional Listening Evaluation by C.D. Johnson & P. Von Almen, 1993.
Eight phrase, sentence or word lists should be presented in the order indicated by the numbers on the scoring
matrix. This order balances for difficulty across conditions so that the final task is the easiest of the distance
conditions. The examiner may choose to alter the order for other reasons however.
The examiner should present the speech materials at a normal speaking rate. The listener repeats the test
stimuli or points to the appropriate picture, as dictated by the material used.
Test administration takes approximately 30 minutes, including set up.
1. Auditory-Visual: Close Quiet
2. Auditory: Close Quiet
3. Auditory-Visual: Close Noise
5. Auditory-Visual : Distant Noise
6. Auditory: Distant Noise
7. Auditory: Distant Quiet
8. Auditory-Visual: Distant Quiet
Repeat noise and distant conditions to validate benefit of hearing assistance technology.
Scoring should be completed using the protocol established for the selected test materials. All scores should be
reported in percent correct in the Scorebox. Hearing assistance technology scores can be entered in the lower
part of the Scorebox for the conditions repeated. The scores for the interpretation matrix will be automatically
transferred and calculated.
Variations in Protocol
This protocol is based on the listening situation of a typical classroom. For an individual student, it may be useful
to modify this protocol to account for variations in the level and source of noise, classroom size, teacher’s voice,
typical listening distances for the student, or other factors. In order to accommodate these variations, the
following modifications may be considered. Modifications other than distance and speech and noise levels
should be noted on the test form.
Placement of noise source Level of noise
Distance of examiner from student for the distant condition Order of presentation
The Interpretation Matrix analyzes the effects of noise, distance, and visual input for the various conditions.
Individual scores are averaged to determine the overall effect of each condition. Hearing assistance technology
scores are entered in the lower portion of the boxes. Although scores may be affected by different speakers,
rate of speaking, attention of the listener, or status of amplification, as long as these variables are kept constant
throughout the evaluation, comparisons are valid.
When validating hearing assistance technology, the target for desired performance is the score from Scorebox 1
(for auditory visual) or Scorebox 2 (auditory only). In other words, the effects of noise and distance can be
considered eliminated when the performance with the device matches the individual’s best performance in quiet
or reduced if the performance is improved. This information can be used as evidence to justify technology and
other accommodations that may be beneficial for the student. The findings should be discussed with the
student, his/her parents, and teachers to help them understand the student’s listening abilities and needs. A
summary of the Interpretation Matrix and appropriate recommendations should be included on the scoring form.
Auditec of St. Louis, Multitalker Noise Tape. 2515 S. Big Bend Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63143-2105; 800-669-9065,
Johnson, C.D. & VonAlmen, P.(1993). The Functional Listening Evaluation. In Educational audiology handbook,
(pp 336-339). Johnson, Benson, & Seaton (1997). San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
Johnson, C.D. Benson, P.V., & Seaton, J.(1997). Educational audiology handbook, Sentence and Phrase Lists,
Appendix Section 15 (pp 477-489). San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
Ross, M., Brackett, D. & Maxon, A. (1991). Communication Assessment. In Assessment and management of
mainstreamed hearing-impaired children (pp 113–127). Austin, Tx: Pro-Ed.
Ying, E. (1990). Speech and Language Assessment: Communication Evaluation. In M. Ross (Ed.), Hearing-
impaired children in the mainstream (pp 45–60). Parkton, MD: York Press.