Mohsin Ahmed Shaikh, Jenna Barrett, Leah Ruiz-Velasco, Yuval Pinchasov
{"title":"Factor Analysis of Auditory Processing Measures in School-Age Children: Evidence for a Four-Factor Structure.","authors":"Mohsin Ahmed Shaikh, Jenna Barrett, Leah Ruiz-Velasco, Yuval Pinchasov","doi":"10.1044/2026_AJA-25-00218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>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 ratio.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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 (<i>r</i> = .08-.45), and internal consistency ranged from α = .64 to Spearman-Brown coefficient = .80 for multi-item factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A multidimensional model of AP was supported, emphasizing the need for including spatial processing measures in routine AP assessment batteries.</p><p><strong>Supplemental material: </strong>https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.33228396.</p>","PeriodicalId":49241,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"1150-1163"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Audiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2026_AJA-25-00218","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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 ratio.
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 factors.
Conclusion: A multidimensional model of AP was supported, emphasizing the need for including spatial processing measures in routine AP assessment batteries.
期刊介绍:
Mission: AJA publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles pertaining to clinical audiology methods and issues, and serves as an outlet for discussion of related professional and educational issues and ideas. The journal is an international outlet for research on clinical research pertaining to screening, diagnosis, management and outcomes of hearing and balance disorders as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. The clinical orientation of the journal allows for the publication of reports on audiology as implemented nationally and internationally, including novel clinical procedures, approaches, and cases. AJA seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work.
Scope: The broad field of clinical audiology, including audiologic/aural rehabilitation; balance and balance disorders; cultural and linguistic diversity; detection, diagnosis, prevention, habilitation, rehabilitation, and monitoring of hearing loss; hearing aids, cochlear implants, and hearing-assistive technology; hearing disorders; lifespan perspectives on auditory function; speech perception; and tinnitus.