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

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. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.33228396

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
American Journal of Audiology
Published
2026-08-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1044/2026_aja-25-00218
Primary Topic
Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Mohsin Ahmed Shaikh, Jenna Barrett, Yuval Pinchasov, Leah Ruiz-Velasco
American Journal of Audiology
Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
article

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

Mohsin Ahmed Shaikh, Jenna Barrett, Yuval Pinchasov, Leah Ruiz-Velasco
article en

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. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.33228396

American Journal of Audiology
Bloomsburg University (US), University of Pennsylvania (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.