The published literature describing three real‐ear‐attenuation‐at‐threshold (REAT), nine above‐threshold, and four objective methods of measuring hearing protector attenuation is reviewed and analyzed with regard to the accuracy, practicality, and applicability of the various techniques. The analysis indicates that the REAT method is one of the most accurate available techniques since it assesses all of the sound paths to the occluded ear and, depending upon the experimenter’s intention, can reflect actual in‐use attenuation as well. An artifact in the REAT paradigm is that masking in the occluded ear due to physiological noise can spuriously increase low‐frequency (≤500 Hz) attenuation, although the error never exceeds approximately 5 dB, regardless of the device, except below 125 Hz. Since the preponderance of available data indicates that attenuation is independent of sound level for intentionally linear protectors, the use of above‐threshold procedures to evaluate attenuation is not a necessity. An exception exists in the case of impulsive noises, for which the existing data are not unequivocal with regard to hearing protector response characteristics. Two of the objective methods (acoustical test fixture and microphone in real ear) are considerable time savers. All objective procedures are lacking in their ability to accurately determine the importance of the flanking bone‐conduction paths, although some authors have incorporated this feature as a post‐measurement correction. The microphone in real‐ear approach is suggested to be one of the most promising for future standardization efforts and research purposes, and the acoustical test fixture technique is recommended (with certain reservations) for quality control and buyer acceptance testing.