Why Hearing Protection Fit Testing Is Essential in Noise Safety Programs
Many hearing conservation programs check the compliance box but still fall short in practice. An expert explains why.
- By David Kopf
- Apr 27, 2026
Despite decades of regulation and widespread use of hearing protection PPE, occupational hearing loss remains a persistent issue. According to Donald Elswick, CIH, CSP, CHMM, CIT, of Columbia Southern University, the problem isn’t a lack of equipment—it’s how that equipment is used.
“Forty percent of the hearing conservation programs in North America are not effective,” Elswick said. “And we’re endangering people as we do that.”
Where Programs Fall Short
At a high level, many organizations rely too heavily on PPE as a final line of defense rather than following the full hierarchy of controls. While eliminating or substituting noise hazards is often impractical, engineering controls and administrative strategies still play a critical role.
But according to Elswick, the biggest breakdown occurs at the PPE level—specifically, how hearing protection is implemented.
“Just throwing them in PPE, not having effective training programs, not fit testing…create issues,” he said.
In many cases, programs appear effective on paper. Audiometric testing may not immediately reveal problems, and other controls can mask deficiencies. But over time, gaps in training, fit and verification can lead to preventable hearing loss.
The NRR Problem: Why Protection Falls Short
One of the most common misconceptions in hearing protection is the reliance on labeled Noise Reduction Ratings (NRR). In practice, workers often receive far less protection than the rating suggests.
Elswick illustrated this with a real-world example from a recent fit test. A worker using hearing protection labeled at 28 decibels of reduction was actually receiving less than 10 decibels with two of the available options.
“When she put in the proper one, she was up over 22 decibels,” he said.
The difference came down to fit and proper use. Ear canal size, shape and insertion technique all influence how well a device performs.
“There were a couple of things…you need to take into account. First of all, the worker’s configuration of the ear canal. Second…do they understand how to put them in properly,” Elswick explained.
Without accounting for these variables, safety managers may assume workers are protected when they are not.
Fit Variability—and Why It Matters
Hearing protection performance can vary dramatically from one worker to another. According to Elswick, results can range from exceeding the labeled NRR to providing virtually no protection at all.
“I’ve seen it four to five decibels above what the manufacturer says…all the way down to zero,” he said.
Overprotection can also introduce risk. In some cases, workers wearing overly effective protection may lose situational awareness.
“I’ve had a couple incidences where people…didn’t hear a powered industrial truck or forklift coming at them,” Elswick noted.
This variability highlights the need for individualized approaches rather than one-size-fits-all solutions.
Common Mistakes in the Field
Even when the correct device is selected, improper use remains a major issue. Elswick pointed to basic insertion errors as one of the most widespread problems.
“The first thing they do…they just try to shove them in,” he said.
Foam earplugs, for example, must be rolled and properly inserted into the ear canal. Workers often skip this step, leaving plugs partially inserted and ineffective.
“They don’t understand…that’s not reducing the noise. You’re still being exposed to the noise level,” he added.
These issues point to a broader challenge: training that is either insufficient or not retained.
The Role of Fit Testing
Fit testing addresses many of these challenges by measuring the actual protection each worker receives. It also helps organizations identify both human and system-level issues.
“Up until fit testing … [it was] always, ‘Well, the worker did something wrong,’” Elswick said.
In reality, hearing protection effectiveness depends on three factors: the worker, the equipment and the organization. Fit testing provides visibility into all three.
It also has practical business benefits. In one facility, Elswick found that an employer providing three types of hearing protection could likely reduce that to two while still protecting all workers.
“You’re improving safety, your quality and your productivity altogether,” he said.
Moving from Compliance to Engagement
For organizations that have not yet implemented fit testing, Elswick emphasizes that the first step is cultural—not technical.
“The biggest thing is winning hearts and minds,” he said.
Workers who have worn hearing protection for years may assume they are adequately protected, especially if audiograms show no immediate issues. However, hearing loss can develop gradually.
Effective programs focus on hands-on training and engagement rather than passive instruction.
“Not death by PowerPoint…actually have them demonstrate they know what’s doing,” Elswick said.
He also recommends closer collaboration with audiologists to identify early changes and intervene before significant damage occurs.
Taking a More Individualized Approach
Elswick believes the future of hearing conservation lies in individualized protection and routine fit verification. As regulatory attention increases, he expects program effectiveness to improve significantly.
“I see that dropping to almost … near zero,” he said, referring to ineffective programs, adding that he envisions a future where fit testing becomes as routine as vision correction.
“Why don’t they do that every time we have an audiogram?” he said. “That’s my dream.”
This article originally appeared in the April/May 2026 issue of Occupational Health & Safety.