We examined 596 patients referred with possible noise-induced hearing loss, by conventional and cortical evoked response audiometry. Discrepancies between the two tests identified 121 (20.3%) as exaggerating their hearing loss. We then studied the validity of simple conventional tests, which would be available in primary diagnostic facilities, in screening for the exaggrerators we had idenfied. By selecting those whose puretone average (for 0.5 and 1 kHz) was more than 10 dB different from the speech reception threshold, or whose initial puretone threshold at 0.5 kHz was 40 dB or greater, we identified 112 (93%) of the exaggerators, at the cost of additional examination of 209 (35% of the total) false-positive. However, this screening means that 46% of the claimants could be evaluated completely in a primary diagnostic facility, and only a small fraction of the exaggerator should be overlook.