US dataswitch to UK
Audiologists
maintaining patient records at all stages, referring patients to additional medical or educational services and participating in conferences or training to update or share knowledge of new hearing or balance disorder treatment methods or technologies. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: administering hearing tests and examining patients to collect information on type and degree of impairment is work software can't reach.
What shifts is maintaining patient records at all stages: the overhead at the edges, not the middle you trained for.
Your week, as this page understands it
Assess and treat persons with hearing and related disorders. May fit hearing aids and provide auditory training. May perform research related to hearing problems. The job title says “audiologists”. The real job is the part underneath: administering hearing tests and examining patients to collect information on type and degree of impairment. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But audiologists is not one task. It is 22 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is administering hearing tests and examining patients to collect information on type and degree of impairment, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 14%
- changing shape
- 22%
- staying human
- 64%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 29 out of 100 (23–35 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 22 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for audiologists is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- 2 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
3 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Maintaining patient records at all stages
This is reading one thing and writing another: patient records in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Maintain patient records at all stages, including initial and subsequent evaluation and treatment activities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing up and keeping patient notes is document work software drafts well from the appointment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Performing administrative tasks, such as managing office functions and finances
This is reading one thing and writing another: administrative tasks in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Perform administrative tasks, such as managing office functions and finances.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Office administration and finances are routine tasks software already handles.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Engaging in marketing activities, such as developing marketing plans, to promote business for private practices
This is reading one thing and writing another: marketing activities in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Engage in marketing activities, such as developing marketing plans, to promote business for private practices.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Marketing plans and promotional material are straightforward for software to draft.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
5 tasksTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Referring patients to additional medical or educational services
The software now makes the first pass at patients, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Refer patients to additional medical or educational services, if needed.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Matching a patient’s needs to the right service is a documented referral decision the clinician makes.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising educators or other medical staff on hearing or balancing topics
The software now makes the first pass at educators, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Advise educators or other medical staff on hearing or balance topics.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Written guidance for teachers or medical colleagues is drafting work software does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Recommending assistive devices according to patients' needs or nature of impairments
The software now makes the first pass at assistive devices, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Recommend assistive devices according to patients' needs or nature of impairments.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Matching devices to a hearing profile is well defined, but dispensing decisions require a licensed audiologist.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing information to the public on hearing or balancing topics
The software now makes the first pass at information, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide information to the public on hearing or balance topics.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 53 out of 100 (46–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Public information about hearing is abundantly documented, so producing it is well within software’s reach.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Staying human
14 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Evaluating hearing and balancing disorders to determine diagnoses and courses of treatment
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for disorders, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Evaluate hearing and balance disorders to determine diagnoses and courses of treatment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Test results point toward a diagnosis, but the diagnosis and treatment plan come from a licensed audiologist.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Fitting, dispensing and repairing assistive devices, such as hearing aids
This work happens in the physical world: assistive devices, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Fit, dispense, and repair assistive devices, such as hearing aids.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (0–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Fitting and repairing hearing aids means working in and around the patient’s ear.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Administering hearing tests and examining patients to collect information on type and degree of impairment
This work happens in the physical world: tests, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Administer hearing tests and examine patients to collect information on type and degree of impairment, using specialized instruments and electronic equipment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Running hearing tests means placing equipment on the patient and watching their responses.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 12 tasks
Conducting or directing research on hearing or balancing topics and reporting findings to help in the development of procedures
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at research, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Conduct or direct research on hearing or balance topics and report findings to help in the development of procedures, technology, or treatments.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Analyzing and writing up research is work software helps with substantially, though studies need real participants.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing and supervising hearing screening programs
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for programs, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop and supervise hearing screening programs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 27 out of 100 (20–34 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Screening programs follow published protocols, but running them needs clinical oversight and people on site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Instructing patients, parents, teachers or employers in communication strategies to maximize effective receptive communication
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles patients, parents, teachers or employers and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Instruct patients, parents, teachers, or employers in communication strategies to maximize effective receptive communication.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Communication strategies are well documented, yet people take them on from a clinician they trust.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Planning and conducting treatment programs for patients' hearing or balancing problems
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for treatment programs, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Plan and conduct treatment programs for patients' hearing or balance problems, consulting with educators, physicians, nurses, psychologists, speech-language pathologists, and other health care personnel, as necessary.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 19 out of 100 (12–26 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Treatment plans can be drafted from guidelines, though the treating audiologist owns the program.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Monitoring patients' progress and providing ongoing observation of hearing or balancing status
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients' progress, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Monitor patients' progress and provide ongoing observation of hearing or balance status.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 19 out of 100 (12–26 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Progress tracking can be automated, but follow-up judgments about hearing or balance are a licensed clinician’s call.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Counseling and instructing patients and their families in techniques to improve hearing and communication related to hearing loss
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Counsel and instruct patients and their families in techniques to improve hearing and communication related to hearing loss.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Teaching a family to cope with hearing loss depends on trust built with them over several sessions.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Educating and supervising audiology students and health care personnel
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: audiology students, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Educate and supervise audiology students and health care personnel.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (8–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Teaching material is easy to prepare, but supervising students in clinic means being there.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Participating in conferences or training to update or share knowledge of new hearing or balance disorder treatment methods or technologies
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: conferences, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Participate in conferences or training to update or share knowledge of new hearing or balance disorder treatment methods or technologies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Keeping your own clinical skills current is something only the practitioner can do.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Programing and monitoring cochlear implants to fit the needs of patients
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: cochlear implants, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Program and monitor cochlear implants to fit the needs of patients.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Cochlear implant programming is done at the patient’s side, tuning to how they actually hear.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Measuring noise levels in workplaces and conducting hearing conservation programs in industry
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: noise levels, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Measure noise levels in workplaces and conduct hearing conservation programs in industry, military, schools, and communities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (0–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Measuring noise levels means taking a meter into the workplace.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Working with multidisciplinary teams to assess and rehabilitate recipients of implanted hearing devices through auditory training and counseling
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: multidisciplinary teams, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Work with multidisciplinary teams to assess and rehabilitate recipients of implanted hearing devices through auditory training and counseling.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (0–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Team rehabilitation of implant users is built on live sessions with the patient.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Examining and cleaning patients' ear canals
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: patients' ear canals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Examine and clean patients' ear canals.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Examining and clearing an ear canal is a physical procedure done by a trained clinician.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $95,780a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 13,660in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: patient records in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: maintaining patient records at all stages and performing administrative tasks, such as managing office functions and finances. What it cannot do is be answerable: tests need a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Start with what does not change: administering hearing tests and examining patients to collect information on type and degree of impairment is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 14% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 22% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 64% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 22 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Maintaining patient records at all stages is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.
This week: one thing
Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to patient records, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.
- What you end up holding
- a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
- How long it takes
- ten minutes
If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether assistive devices are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.
Over the next 90 days
Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near referring patients to additional medical or educational services. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.
Over the next 12 months
On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to audiologists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was speech-language pathologists: only about 14% of its durable work is work you already do. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 29/100 here, with only 14% of the task list in the top band, and “evaluate hearing and balance disorders to determine diagnoses and courses of treatment” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Speech-Language Pathologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already administer hearing tests and examine patients to collect information on type and degree…, and their equivalent is to administer hearing or speech and language evaluations, tests, or examinations to patients to…. Across both published task lists that is about 14% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 14% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on.
Hearing Aid Specialists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already counsel and instruct patients and their families in techniques to improve hearing and…, and their equivalent is to counsel patients and families on communication strategies and the effects of hearing loss. Across both published task lists that is about 10% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 10% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. It is a pay cut, in those words: $65,160 against your $95,780, 32.0% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
General Internal Medicine Physicians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already refer patients to additional medical or educational services, if needed, and their equivalent is to refer patient to medical specialist or other practitioner when necessary. Across both published task lists that is about 1% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 1% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $256,560 against your $95,780 is 2.68× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 1% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 14% of its task weight, across 22 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like administering hearing tests and examining patients to collect information on type and degree of impairment arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Speech and language therapists is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Speech and language therapists. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for audiologists, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 14% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for audiologists. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for audiologists launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Audiologists?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 22 official task statements scored for Audiologists (United States, SOC 29-1181), 14% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 29 out of 100 (range 23–35, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Audiologists” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Engage in marketing activities, such as developing marketing plans, to promote business for private practices” (75/100, high); “Perform administrative tasks, such as managing office functions and finances” (75/100, high); “Maintain patient records at all stages, including initial and subsequent evaluation and treatment activities” (66/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Audiologists” stay human?
- About 64% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Administer hearing tests and examine patients to collect information on type and degree of impairment, using specialized instruments and electronic equipment” (0/100, minimal); “Examine and clean patients' ear canals” (0/100, minimal); “Fit, dispense, and repair assistive devices, such as hearing aids” (5/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Audiologists” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 14% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 64% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Audiologists calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 22 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 2 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.