View in EDS PDF Full Text

Factor Analysis of Auditory Processing Measures in School-Age Children: Evidence for a Four-Factor Structure.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Factor Analysis of Auditory Processing Measures in School-Age Children: Evidence for a Four-Factor Structure.
Authors: Shaikh, Mohsin Ahmed1 mshaikh@commonwealthu.edu, Barrett, Jenna1, Ruiz-Velasco, Leah1, Pinchasov, Yuval1
Source: American Journal of Audiology. Sep2026, Vol. 35 Issue 3, p1150-1163. 14p.
Subject Terms: *Auditory perception testing, *Data analysis, *Retrospective studies, *Research, *Research methodology, *Auditory perception, *Speech perception, *Factor analysis, *Clinics, *Children, Cross-sectional method, Dichotic listening tests, Research evaluation, Descriptive statistics, Chi-squared test, Multivariate analysis, Medical records, Acquisition of data, Statistics, Space perception, Data analysis software, Time, Reliability (Personality trait)
Geographic Terms: Pennsylvania
Abstract: Purpose: Traditional auditory processing (AP) test batteries rarely include validated measures of spatial speech segregation, despite clinical guidelines demonstrating the importance of spatial hearing. This study aimed to explore the factor structure of nine AP tests in school-age children, hypothesizing a multifactor model that includes degraded speech processing, dichotic listening, temporal processing, and spatial processing, using both traditional tests and the Listening in Spatialized Noise--Sentences (LiSN-S) test. Method: A retrospective, cross-sectional study examined clinical AP measures through factor analysis. The sample included 68 children (24 girls, 44 boys), 8.0--10.67 years of age, referred for AP evaluation from 2012 to 2025. All had normal hearing (thresholds ≤ 20 dB HL), normal middle ear function, no neurological or psychological conditions, English spoken as primary language, and typical cognitive functioning. The sample size met guidelines with a 7.6:1 participant-to-variable rat io. Results: A four-factor solution accounting for 68.7% of the variance was identified: (1) dichotic processing (27.81%; Competing Sentences = 0.98, Competing Words--Free Recall = 0.76), (2) degraded speech processing (15.48%; Auditory Figure Ground = 0.88, Time Compressed Sentences = 0.51, Phonemic Synthesis = 0.47), (3) spatial processing (13.62%; LiSN-S spatial advantage = 0.69, high cue = -0.42), and (4) temporal processing (11.82%; Frequency Pattern Test = 0.73). Intercorrelations were moderate (r = .08-.45), and internal consistency ranged from α = .64 to Spearman--Brown coefficient = .80 for multi-item fac tors. Conclusion: A multidimensional model of AP was supported, emphasizing the need for including spatial processing measures in routine AP assessment batteries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of American Journal of Audiology is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:Purpose: Traditional auditory processing (AP) test batteries rarely include validated measures of spatial speech segregation, despite clinical guidelines demonstrating the importance of spatial hearing. This study aimed to explore the factor structure of nine AP tests in school-age children, hypothesizing a multifactor model that includes degraded speech processing, dichotic listening, temporal processing, and spatial processing, using both traditional tests and the Listening in Spatialized Noise--Sentences (LiSN-S) test. Method: A retrospective, cross-sectional study examined clinical AP measures through factor analysis. The sample included 68 children (24 girls, 44 boys), 8.0--10.67 years of age, referred for AP evaluation from 2012 to 2025. All had normal hearing (thresholds ≤ 20 dB HL), normal middle ear function, no neurological or psychological conditions, English spoken as primary language, and typical cognitive functioning. The sample size met guidelines with a 7.6:1 participant-to-variable rat io. Results: A four-factor solution accounting for 68.7% of the variance was identified: (1) dichotic processing (27.81%; Competing Sentences = 0.98, Competing Words--Free Recall = 0.76), (2) degraded speech processing (15.48%; Auditory Figure Ground = 0.88, Time Compressed Sentences = 0.51, Phonemic Synthesis = 0.47), (3) spatial processing (13.62%; LiSN-S spatial advantage = 0.69, high cue = -0.42), and (4) temporal processing (11.82%; Frequency Pattern Test = 0.73). Intercorrelations were moderate (r = .08-.45), and internal consistency ranged from α = .64 to Spearman--Brown coefficient = .80 for multi-item fac tors. Conclusion: A multidimensional model of AP was supported, emphasizing the need for including spatial processing measures in routine AP assessment batteries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:10590889
DOI:10.1044/2026_AJA-25-00218