NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Literacy of older

Adults h America

Results from the

National Adult Literacy Survey

For sale by tbe U.S. Government Printing OffIce

Superintendent of Documents. Mail S[op: SSOP, Washington, DC XM02-9328
U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

Sharon P. Robinson

Assistant Secreta~

National Center for Education Statistics

Pascal D. Forgione, Jr.

Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing,

and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional

mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in

the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of

such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review

and report on education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable,

complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high quality

data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers,

practitioners, data users, and the general public.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a variety

of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information

effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this-or any other NCES product or report, we

would like to hear from you. Please direct yourmomments to:

National Center for Education Statistics

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20206-5574

November 1996

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

For ordering information on this report, write:

National Library of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 2020&5641

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is

http:hvw%v.ed.govlNCESl

The National Adult Literacy Survey Web Page is

http: //www.ed.gov/NCES/nadlits/

Suggested Citation

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Literacy of (3/der Adults in America: Resu/ts

from the National Adult Literacy Suwey, NCES 97-576, by Helen Brown, Robert f%suta, Beila Jacobs, and Anne

Campbell. Washington, DC: 1996.

Contact

Andrew Kolstad

(202) 219-1773

The work upon which this publication is based was performed for the National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational

Research and Improvement, by Educational Testing Service.

Educational Testing Service is an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer.

Educational Testing Service and ETS are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service.
2-

.kckllo\\’lecl~lllerlt> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Preikx . . . . . . . .. -. .. O. O.. O...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..vii

Ewwti\eSumma17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..fi

Introclllctio]l.. . . . . . . . . . . ....................~... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 1

Defining and Measuring Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...2

Conductingthe Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...5

Reporting the Resuks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...8

About This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...12

ANote on Interpretations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . ...13

.-

Cll:lpter l: Liter:tc>i ntl~e{)lder .\dult Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...1 5

Assessing Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...15

Literacy Proficiencies inthe Older Adult Population Overall . . . . . . ...16

Differences illiteracy Proficiencies

Within the Older Adult Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Comparingthe Literacy Proficienciesof

Older andYoungerAdults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...21

Comparing Demonstrated and

Self-reported Literacy Proficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...23

Help with Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...26

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...30

chapter-.‘~, ~i~~.~:>(_.\-. l)l-OtiltJS for Various .Sul):rollns

of the {]k{L’1. ‘:(itliil’ol)lll:ltio~l” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...31

Level ofEducation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . ...31

Comparinglevels ofeducationamong

older andyoungeradults. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . ...32

Comparing literacyproficiencies bylevel ofeducation . . . . . . . . ...34

Analyzingthe relationship between literacy and

level ofeducation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Reasons forleavingschool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...38

Race/ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...40

Contents. . . . ..iii
Racial/ethnic differences in self-reported literacy proficiencies. . . . . 42

Race/ethnicity and Ie\el of education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Language Use..,...........,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Visual Itnpiiirlnent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..50

Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..52

Sex differences in self-reported literacy proficiencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . ...56

Sumnuu y...,...........,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...57

L;!uptc’r ,;: Enl!)h)Tmenl. [jilic j’;ll”tici]):itioll. :il~ri

Ec[)ll(Jlllic Stiltusus Tile\ t{elateto Literacvin

tlle{)l(le]- .lciult PolluI:iti(]n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...59 \

Retirement an dLab(]rForc eParticipation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Civic Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...64

Volunteer activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...64

Voting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...66

Annual Household Income... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...67

Level ofeducation and annual householdincome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Race and annual householdincome ., .~. ., .~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Sex and annual householdincome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,75

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..77

Cha1]ter4: ~,iter:l{:~- pr:~ctices :~~]clpr(}fieieneic~s

in tllet)lciel- .ici~lit l’OI]lli~lti(}tl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...79

Acquisition ofLiteracy Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..79

LibrmyUse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...83

Newspaper Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...85

Magazine Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...87

Sources ofInformation about Current Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Television Viewing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...91

Personal Literacy Activities.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...93

Work-related LiteracyActivities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...96

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...99

Appendices

Appendix A: Interpreting the Literacy Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Appendix B: Additional Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...145

Appendix C: Overview ofProcedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157

Appendix D: Definitions ofSubpopulations andVariables . . . . . . . . . . 175

AppendixE:Participants/Information About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . 183

iv. . . . . . Content s
-.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We extend our appreciation to the many individuals who contributed to the

project and helped create this report on literacy in the older adult population.

Thanks are especially due the members of the Literacy Definition Committee, the

Technical Review Committee, the Literacy of Incarcerated Adults Review Group,

and the Literacy of Older Adults Review Group. The members of these

committees, listed in Appendix E, guided the project from beginning to end.

The National Adult Literacy Survey was a cooperative effort planned by the

National Center for Education Statistics and the Div@ion of Adult Education and

Literacy of the U.S. Department of Education. Emerson Elliot, commissioner,

provided consistent support and guidance. Andrew Kolstad, the project monitor,

conscientiously guided the project and provided careful reviews of deliverables.

Gary Phillips, Sue Ahmed, Joan Seamen, and Ron Pugsley also played crucial

roles.

Thanks are due our colleagues at Westat, Inc., for their outstanding work in

managing the complex sampling, data collection, and composite weighting

processes for the survey We especially wish to acknowledge project director

Martha Berlin, senior statistician Joe Waksberg, statisticians Leyla Mohadjer and

Jim Green, field director Sue Rieger, and field managers Rich Hilpert, Merle

Klein, Judy Meader, and Cindy Randall. The hundreds of field supervisors and

intentiewers who carried out the survey deserve special thanks for their efforts.

We are grateful to Renee Slobasky, senior vice president of Westat, for her

continuing support.

At Educational Testing Service, Irwin Kirsch directed the National Adult

Literacy Survey. Sam Messick served as corporate officer. Doug Rhodes

coordinated the State Adult Literacy Survey project as well as printing and

shipping operations for the national survey, assisted by Cathy Shaughnessy.

Jules Goodison provided senior guidance and support, particularly in the

operations process, and we are grateful to him for his many contributions. We

would also like to express our appreciation to Dave Hobson for his sense in

financial and other matters. Mary Michaels coordinated the committee

meetings, the publication of the assessment framework booklet and other

aspects of the project, ensuring that the work proceeded smoothly.

Our thanks go to those who carried out the operations work — in

particular Debbie Giannacio, who coordinated the receipt of the survey

.

v
lnaterials. follow-up acti~tities, and qualitv control. She was assisted In” Kathv

Miller, t~dlo also provided administrative support for the project. I?re

acknowledge the contributions of Joanne Antonoff, ~vho helped prepare the

JNALS proposal and whose memory we cherish. Beverly Cisney providecl

invaluable assistance in word processing and desktop publishing.

Don Rock and Kentaro Yamamoto of Educational Testing Service directed

statistical and psychometric activities and provided guidance on technical

matters. Robert Mislevy helped us reflect on statistical as well as philosophical

questions. and Charlie Lewis. Neal Thomas, and Ming-Mei Wang were at,ailable

for statistical advice.

Norma Norris deserves special honors for conducting the statistical work

and managing the data analyses under impossibly tight deadlines. Her support

went above and beyond the call of duty, and we are grateful for her dedication.

Jim Ferris, Dave Freund, Tom Jirele, Bruce Kaplan, Jennifer Nelson, Inge

Novatkoski, Kate Pashley, and Lois Worthington shared responsibility for

conducting the data analyses. Thanks to John Barone for helping to oversee data

analysis activities.

As this report took shape, many reviewers asked questions and provided

insights that helped us sharpen our thinking and writing. We thank them all for

their helpful comments.

Lynn Jenkins edited the manuscript and guided it &rough the final stages

to publication. The design for the NALS reports was created by Robin !vlatlack

of the ETS Publications Division.

Finally, we wish to thank the thousands of adults across the country who

gave their time to respond to the survey. Without their participation, this study

would not have been possible.

Helen Brown Bells Jacobs

Bob Prisuta Anne Campbell

.

vi ...,.. Acknowledgments
PREFACE

I he United States has always been a mosaic of cwhures, but the diversity of

our population has increased by striking proportions in recent years. As

Barbara Everitt Bryant, former director of the Bureau of the Census, has

written: “If you gave America a face in 1990, it would have shown the first sign

of wrinkles [and] it would have been full of color. ”i The median age of

Americans continues to rise, growing from 30 to almost 33 years during the

1980s. It is projected that by the year 2080, nearly 25 percent of the adults in

this nation will be over 65, compared with only about 12 percent today. The

racial and ethnic composition of the nation dso continues to change. While 3.7

million people of Asian or Pacific Islander origin were living in this country in

1980, there were 7,2 million a decade later — an increase of almost 100

percent. The number of individuals of Hispanic origin also rose dramatically

over this time period, from roughly 6 to 9 percent of the population, or to more

than 22 million people. Our increasing diversity can not only be seen but also

be heard: today, some 32 million individuals in the United States speak a

language other than English, and these languages range from Spanish and

Chinese to Yupik and Mon-Khmer.z

Given these patterns and changes, this is an opportune time to explore the

literacy skills of adults in this nation. In 1988, the U.S. Congress called on the

Department of Education to support a national literacy survey of America’s

adults. While recent studies funded by the federal government explored the

literacy of young adults and job seekers, the National Adult Literacy Survey is

the first to provide accurate and detailed information on the skills of the adult

population as a whole — information that, to this point, has been unavailable.

Perhaps never before have so many people from so many different sectors

of society been concerned about adult literacy. Numerous reports published in

1 B.E. B~ant. (1991). “The Changing Face of the United States.” The Wodd Ahmac and Book of Facts,

1991. New York, NY: Pharos Books. p. 72.

z United States Department of Commerce. (April 1993). “’Number of Non-English Language Speaking

Americans Up Sharply in 1980s, Census Bureau Says. ” United States Department crfCotnrrwme News.

.

●

✎

Preface vii
the last decade — including A Nation at Risk. Tlte Botto))) Li)w, T]m subtle

Danger, Literacy: Pr(filcs of America k YolIng Addts, ](lI)ip Start: The Federal

Role in Add Educatio~i, J1’ork$)rce 2000, ihtwrica~y Choice: High Skills or

Lou Wages, and Beyond the SCIIOO1 Doom — have prmided evidence that a

large portion of our population lacks adequate literacy skills and have

intensified the debate over how this problem should be addressed.

Concerns about literacy are not ne~v. In fact, throughout our nation’s

history there have been periods when the literacy skills of the population were

judged inadequate. Yet, the nature of these concerns has changed radically over

time. In the past, the lack of ability to read and use printed materials was seen

primarily as an individual problem, with implications for a person’s job

opportunities, educational goals, sense of fulfillment, anti participation in

society. Now, however, it is increasingly viewed as a national problem, with

implications that reach far beyond the individual. Concerns about the human

costs of limited literacy have, in a sense, been overshadowed by concerns about

the economic and social costs

Although Americans today are, on the whole, better educated and more

literate than any who preceded them, many employers say they are unable to find

enough workers with the reading, writing, mathematical, and other cotnpetencies

required in the workplace. Changing economic, demographic, and labor-market

forces may exacerbate the problem in the future. As a recent study by the

American Society for Training and Development concluded, ” These forces are

creating a human capital deficit that threatens U.S. competitiveness and acts as a

barrier to individual opportunities for all Americans.”~

Whether future jobs will have greater literacy requirements than today’s

jobs, or whether the gap between the nation’s literacy resources and its needs will

widen, are open questions. The evidence to support such predictions is scarce.

What many believe, however, is that our current systems of education and

training are inadequate to ensure individual opportunities, improve economic

productivity, or strengthen our nation’s competitiveness in the global

marketplace.

There is widespread agreement that we as a nation must respond to the

literacy challenge, not only to preserve our economic vitality but also to ensure

that every individual has a full range of opportunities for personal fulfillment and

participation in society, At the historic education summit in Charlottesville,

Virginia, the nation’s governors — including then-Governor Clinton — met with

then-President Bush to establish a set of national education goals that would

guide this country into the twenty-first century. As adopted in 1990 by members

of the National Governors’ Association, one of the six goals states:

1 A. P. Carnewde, L.J. Gainer, A.S. Meltzer, and S, L. Holland. (October 1988). “\\rorkpIace Basics: Tbe Skills

Employers Want.” Training and Deuelopvwnt]otimal,” pp. 20-30.

.0

. . . Vm . . . . . . Preface
By the year 2000, every adult American will be literate and

t.oill possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a

global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of

citizenship.

The following year, Congress passed the National Literacv Act of 1991, the

purpose of which is “to enhance the literacy and basic skills of adults, to ensure

that all adults in the United States acquire the basic skills necessarv to fhnction

effectively and achieve the greatest possible opportunity in their work and in

their lives, and to strengthen and coordinate adult literacy programs. ”

But how should these ambitious goals be pursued? In the past, whenever the

population’s skills were called into question, critics generally focused on the

educational system and insisted that school reforms were necessary if the nation

were to escape serious social and economic consequences. Today, however, many

of those who need to improve their literacy skills have already left school. In fact,

it is estimated that almost 80 percent of the work force for the year 2000 is

already employed, Moreover, many of those who demonstrate limited literacy

skills do not perceive that they have a problem. Clearly, then, the schools alone

cannot strengthen the abilities of present and future employees and of the

population as a whole. A broad-based response seems necessary.

To initiate such a response, we need more than localized reports or anecdotal

information from employers, public leaders, or the press; accurate and detailed

information about our current status is essential. AS reading researchers John

Carroll and Jean Chall observed in their book Toward a Literate Society, “any

national program for improving literacy skills would have to be based on the best

possible information as to where the deficits are and how serious they are.”4

Surprisingly, though, we have lacked accurate and detailed information about

literacy in our nation — including how many individuals have limited skills, who

they are, and the severity of their problems.

In 1988, Congress asked the U.S. Department of Education to address this

need for information on the nature and extent of adult literacy. In response, the

Department’s National Center for Education Statistics and Division of Adult

Education and Literacj called for a nationaJ household survey of the literacy

skills of adults in the United States. A contract was awarded to Educational

Testing Service and a subcontract to Westat, Inc. to design and conduct the

National Adult Literacy Survey, results from which are presented in these pages.

4 J.B. Carroll and J.S. (%dl, eds. (1975), Toward a Literrrte SOciettj: A Report from the ,\7ationrzl Academy of

Education. New York, NY: Mccruw Hill. p, 11.

*

●

☛

Preface ix
During the first eight months of 1992, trained staff conducted household

interviews with nearly 13,600 individuals aged 16 and older who had been

randomly selected to represent the adult population in this country. In addition,

some 1,100 inmates from 80 federal and state prisons were interviewed to

gather information on the skills of the prison population. Finally, approximately

1,000 adults were surveyed in each of 12 states that chose to participate in a

special study designed to produce state-level results that are comparable to the

national data. Each individual was asked to spend about an hour responding to

a series of diverse literacy tasks and providing information on his or her

background, education, labor market experiences, and reading practices.

The results of the National Adult Literacy Survey comprise an enormous

set of data that includes more than a million responses to the literacy tasks and

background questions. More important than the size of the database, however, is

the fact that it provides information that w- previously unavailable —

information that is essential to understanding this nation’s literacy resources.

To ensure that the survey results will reach a wide audience, the

committees that guided the project recommended that the findings be issued

in a series of reports. This volume discusses the results k the older adult

population. The series also includes a report that provides an overview of the

results of the survey as well as additional reports that offer a more detailed look

at particular issues, including:

Q literacy in the work force

● literacy and education

● literacy among prison inmates

● literacy and cultural diversity

● literacy practices

A final report conveys technical information about the survey design and

the methods used to implement it.

Although these reports focus almost exclusively on the results of the

National Adult Literacy Survey, their contents have much broader implications.

The rich collection of information they contain can be used to inform policy

debates, set program objectives, and reflect on our society’s literacy resources

and needs.

Irwin S. Kirsch

Project Director

●

P f
>

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As4sw.rc’3~,-siTmL .~

For age is opportunity no less than youth itself.

—Henry Wdwmrth Longfellow

nslifeexpectancies continue toriseandascurrent demographic patterns

continue to play themselves out, older people are becoming an increasingly large

and important segment of the United States population. Consider these statistics.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, fewer than 1 in 25 Americans was age

65 or older. Today, more than 1 in 8 are in this age group. In 1990 there were

approximately 31 million adults in the United States age 65 and older. Between

2010 and 2030, as the “Baby Boom” ages, the number of older adults in the

United States is projected to more than double. In fact, individuals age 65 and

.-

older may outnumber those under 18. Further, the “oldest old’ population,

comprising adults age 85 and older, is expected to grow faster than any other

segment of the older adult population in the coming decades. 1

These demographic patterns have profound implications. Perhaps one of the

greatest challenges our society faces is the need to find new and better ways to

enhance the opportunities of older adults to live full, independent, and productive

lives through their later years. While changing medical technologies make it

possible for people to live longer, these do not ensure health or happiness. In fact,

growing numbers of older adults suffer from chronic health problems and are

either physically or mentally impaired. As one report recently put it, “Where

length of life has been an important societal issue in the past, quality of life

(active life expectancy) is an issue of increasing importance.’”

Thus, beyond providing the necessary health and social support services

for older persons, it is also important to address their literacy needs. Literacy

helps individuals-old or young—to continue to learn new things, to read for

pleasure, to be informed about the world and their communities, to handle

everyday tasks, to take care of their own needs. Literacy also is essential in

1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1991). Aging America. Washington, D. C.: Department

of Health and Human Services. pp. xix, 74-5. Cynthia M. Taeuber. (1992). Si.rty-fice Pk in Amen”ca.

Washington, D, C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports.

pp. 2.3-2.8.

2 C,ynthia M. Taeuber. (1992). Si.xty-fitie PII~s in Amen’ca. Washington, DC.: U.S. Department of Commerce,

Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports. p. vi.

●

.

●
enabling older persons to remain in or rejoin the work force, to contribute to

others of all genertitions through ~wlunteerism, civic participation, and family

support, Efforts to respond to the literacy needs of older adults must be

grmlnded in a thorough understanding of the current status, The National

Adult Literacy Survey Inakes it possible, for the first time, to construct a

detailed picture of the literacy skills of older adults in the United States. This

national study, conducted in 1992, assessed three types of literacy—prose,

document, and quantitative.

This report examines the literacy proficiencies of older adults in this

country, defined as persons age 60 and over. This age definition is used because

the transition to retirement often begins approximately at age 60, and because

older adulthood is commonly associated with retirement~Although age 65 is

often viewed as the “normal” retirement age, the average retirement age is

actually about 62. At age 60, most people are still working; by 65, most are

retired.s Accordingly, if this report bad defined older adults as those age 65 and

older, it would have ignored individuals in the important transition years (age 61

to 64).

A brief summary of the key survey findings is-offefid in the following

pages. More detailed information is presented in the subsequent chapters of the

report.

Literacy in the Older Adult Population

Adults age 60 and over area heterogeneous group in their characteristics as well

as in their literacy skills. Still, the results of the National Adult Literacy Survey

indicate that low levels of prose, document, and quantitative literacy are a

significant problem for a large portion of the older adult population in the United

States.

~ Seventy-one percent of adults age 60 and older, or approximately 29 million

individuals nationwide, demonstrated limited prose skills, performing in the

two lowest levels of prose literacy defined in the survey.

● Slightly more than two-thirds, or 68 percent, of older adults appeared to

have difficulty finding and processing quantitative information in printed

materials. In population terms, this means that an estimated 28 million persons

age 60 and older across the nation have limited quantitative literacy skills.

● The problem appears to be even more acute in the area of document

literacy, which is associated with activities such as filling out forms, reading

and following directions, and using schedules. Four of every five older adults

~ W.J. Wktrowski. (1993) “Factors Affecting Retirement Income,” Monthly Labor Reoiew. 116(3). pp. 25-35.

●
demonstrated limited document literacy skills in the assessment, performing

in the two lowest proficiency levels defined.

Large differences in literacy skills are found between older and younger

adults. On average, individuals age 60 and older displayed more limited skills

than those under age 60.

● Notable differences in performance are also evident within the older adult

population. Those age 60 to 69 outperformed those age 70 to ’79, who in turn

outperformed those age 80 and older.

~ Many older individuals with limited literacy skills do not seem to believe that

they have a problem. The percentage of older Americans who said they

perform various types of literacy activities “very well” was about the same as

that of persons under 60. In actuality, however, the average literacy

proficiencies of older adults were much lower than those of younger

persons.

● Many older adults reported receiving help from family or friends with

literacy tasks such as filling out forms, writing notes and letters, doing math,

and processing written information. Yet, the number of older persons who

appear to need such help, as evidenced by their literacy proficiencies, is far

larger than the number who said they receiye ass$tance.

Literacy Profiles for Various Subgroups of the Older Adult Population

How do literacy proficiencies vary within the older adult population? What

explains the differences in skills observed between older and younger adults?

The performance gaps can be partly explained by factors such as education and

visual impairment.

● Regardless of the age group, literacy proficiencies tend to increase as level of

education increases.

● Older Americans tended to have completed less schooling than younger

individuals.

. Older adults were more likely than those under age 60 to have visual

impairments that may impede their ability to read and process printed

information.

c Older adults were slightly less likely than younger adults to report that they

usually speak English only.

Education, language background, and visual impairments do not fully

explain the differences in literacy proficiency between the younger and older

populations, however. In general, even when these factors are held constant,

adults under age 60 still tended to demonstrate stronger literacy proficiencies

than those age 60 and over.

*
The National Adult Literacy Survey makes it possible to explore relationships

between older adults’ employment and civic participation and their

demonstrated literacy proficiencies. The data can also be used to study the

association between income and literacy.

* The literacy skills of older persons who were employed or who were retired

and volunteering are higher, on average, than those of their peers who were

retired or unemployed.

m Individuals age 60 and older who had recently performed volunteer work

and those who had voted in a recent national or state election performed

better in the literacy assessment than those who had not.

a Older adults with annual household incomes below $10,000 were

disproportionately likely to display limited literacy skills.

Literacy Practices and Proficiencies in the Older Aduit Population

.

The survey results also offer valuable insights into the types of literacy activities

that older adults engage in and the relationships between these activities and

their literacy proficiencies.

● Adults age 60 and older were more likely than younger adults to report that

they did not learn certain literacy skills at all, or that they learned them at

home rather than at school. In general, learning skills at school or in the

workplace appears to be related to higher literacy proficiencies, while

learning skills at home does not.

* Older adults who reported that they regularly use the public libra~

outperformed those who said they do not. This finding is important because

the library often serves as a social meeting place in addition to being a

reading resource.

~ Older adults who rely extensively on newspapers and magazines for

information about current events, public affairs, and government

outperformed those who depend heavily on television or family members

* Adults age 60 and older were less likely than those under 60 to report that

they often read or write letters, fill out forms, and use arithmetic in

everyday life.

* Older and younger workers performed various types of work-related literacy

tasks with about the same frequency. Yet, older employees who engaged in

these tasks tended to display more limited literacy skills than their younger

counteqmrts.

.
111 SU1llllMIT, many olcler Amelicans delrronstr:lted Iilllited prose. d(wulnent. ul)d

qu:mtitative literacy skills ill the Natiomd Adult Litemcy Survey. Although

there is t~luch rhetmic dwut greater self-i~ct~~:~liz:~tioll and social participation

for older :~dults. limited literacy skills clearly represent a barrier to :~ttnining

these goals.

AS the authors examined the survev data and other relevw~t rese:trch. :ll]cI

deliberated On the results. several obsewations and concerns elnergecl.

Business, government, and social institutions m-e being confronted with the

need to xddress the literacy needs of older persons. They must consider how

they communicate with older adults, many of whom +re visually impaired.

Forms, instructions, letters, and other matelials my need to be redesigned

with the literacy skills of an aging population in mind. The authors were

concerned that education and job training programs that hiwe, in the past,

been targeted to younger persons may need to be refocused to address the

needs of older persons.

As often noted in the literature, aging persous as well m societv M a whole

will benefit if older adults are valued m sources of wisdom and expedience mid

perceived as vital nnd productive individu:ds who continue to learn, grow, :uld

contribute throughout their l:~ter lives.’ The National Adult Literacy Study

results indicate that older adults who :we equipped with strong literacy skills

can contribute a great deal to society. These individu:ds ~u-e more likely to

participate in civic activities and less likely to need assistance with everyday

literacy tasks than are those with limited skills.

Growing numbers of older Americans are contradicting loug-standillg

stereotypes about what it means to be old. Although it is not comlnon to thi]lk

of older persons M learners, the reality is that manv adults in their seventies,

eighties, and nineties m-e continually :Icquiling new knowledge mld skills aod

want to keep doing so for M long as their minds tmd bodies permit. Learning is

an essential part of what it me~ms to be hulnau. regardless of age. Fllrtherlnore,

economic realities continue to require manv older persons to relnain active ill

the labor force. where strong liter~tcy skills are increasingly required.

The survey finding> demonstrate that literacy problems do Ilot {)llly affect

young persons. The challenges of having limited Iiterwy skills are experienced

by the young and old dike, :md so must opportunities to improve and expand

one’s literncy be available to individuals of all ages.

t R.N. Butler, M.R. Oberlink, d M. Schechter. editors. t 1990). T/It Pnnnise qfPrwhMw Aging: From

Bio@j to Social Polic!y. New York: Springer Publishing CoIupmly,

.

●

●

xv
.

xvi
INTRODUCTION

Regardless of their age, individuals in this society undertake countless

literacy tasks each day: completing forms, reading notes, balancing checkbooks,

following written instructions, comparing prices, browsing through news articles.

The ability to perform these tasks allows each of us to negotiate wide-ranging

aspects of everyday life and to continue learning, growing, and participating in

society.

The results of the National Adult Literacy Survey make it possible, for the

first time, to take an in-depth look at the literacy proficiencies of America’s older

adults and to explore the relationships between literacy and an array of individual

characteristics and experiences.

This large-scale survey, conducted in 1992, grew out of the Adult Education

Amendments of 1988, in which the U.S. Congress called upon the Department of

Education to report on the definition of literacy and on the nature and extent of

literacy among adults in the nation. In response, the Department’s National

Center for Education Statistics and the Division of Adult Education and Literacy

planned a national household survey of adult literacy In September 1989, the

National Center for Education Statistics awarded a four-year contract to

Educational Testing Service to design and administer the survey and to analyze

and report the results. A subcontract was given to Westat, Inc., for sampling and

field operations.

The plan for developing and conducting the National Adult Literacy Survey

was guided by a panel of experts from business and indust~, labor, government,

research, and adult education. This Literacy Definition Committee worked with

Educational Testing Service staff to prepare a definition of literacy that would

guide the development of the assessment objectives as well as the construction

and selection of assessment tasks. A second panel, the Technical Review

Committee, was formed to help ensure the soundness of the assessment design,

the quality of the data collected, the integrity of the analyses conducted, and the

appropriateness of the interpretations of the final results.

This introduction summarizes the discussions that led to the adoption of a

definition of literacy for the National Adult Literacy Survey, the framework used

I
-..

.

in designing the survey instruments, the populations assessed, the survev.

administration, and the methods for reporting the results.

The National Adult Literacy Survey is the third and largest assessment of adult

literacy funded by the federal government and conducted by Educational Testing

Service. The two previous efforts included a 198,5 household survey of the

literacy skills of 21-to 25-year-olds, funded by the U.S. Department of

Education, and a 1989-90 survey of the literacy proficiencies of job seekers,

funded by the U.S. Department of Labor.l The definition of literacy that guided

the National Adult Literacy Survey was rooted in these preceding studies.

Building on earlier work in large-scale literacy assessment, the 1985 young

adult survey attempted to extend the concept of literacy, to take into account

some of the criticisms of previous surveys, and to benefit from advances in

educational assessment methodology. The national panel of experts that was

assembled to construct a definition of literacy for this survey rejected the types of

arbitra~ standards — such as signing one’s name, mmpl~ing five years of

school, or scoring at a particular grade level on a school-based measure of

reading achievement — that have long been used to make judgments about

adults’ literacy skills. Through a consensus process, this panel drafted the

following definition of literacy, which helped set the framework for the young

adult survey:

Using printed and written information to function in

society, to achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s

knowledge and potential.

Unlike traditional definitions of literacy, which focused on decoding and

comprehension, this definition encompasses a broad range of skills that adults

use in accomplishing the many different types of literacy tasks associated with

work, home, and community contexts. This perspective is shaping not only adult

literacy assessment but policy as well — as seen in the National Literacy Act of

1991, which defined literacy as “an individual’s ability to read, write, and speak

in English and compute and solve problems at levels of proficiency necessary to

function on the job and in society, to achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s

knowledge and potential.”

11.S, Kirsch and A, Jungeblut. (1986). Literacy: Projiles of America k Young Adults. Princeton, NJ: Educational

Testing Service. 1.S, Kirsch, A. Jungebhst, and A. Campbell. ( 1992). Beyond the Schoo2 Doors: The Literacy

Needs ofJob Seekers Served by the U.S. Department of Labor. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

●

✎☛

2 . . . . . . Introduction
The definition of literae?’ from the young adult survey was adopted by the

panel that guided the development of the 1989-90 survey of job seekers, and it

also provided the starting point for the discussions of the NALS Literacy

Definition Committee. This committee agreed that expressing the literacy

proficiencies of adults in school-based terms or grade-level scores is

inappropriate. In addition, while the committee recognized the importance of

teamwork skills, interpersonal skills, and communication skills for functioning in

various contexts, such as the ~vork place, it decided that these areas would not be

addressed in this survey

Further, the committee endorsed the notion that literacy is neither a single

skill suited to all types of texts, nor an infinite number of skills, each associated

with a given type of text or material. Rather, as suggested by the results of the

young adult and job-seeker surveys, an ordered set of skills appears to be called

into play to accomplish diverse types of tasks. Given this perspective, the NALS

committee agreed to adopt not only the definition of literacy that was used in the

previous surveys but also the three scales developed as part of those efforts:

Prose literacy — the knowledge and ski~s needed to understand and use

information from texts that include editorials, news stories, poems, and

fiction; for example, finding a piece of information in a newspaper article,

interpreting instructions from a warranty, infernng a theme from a poem, or

contrasting views expressed in an editorial.

Document literacy — the knowledge and skills required to locate and use

information contained in materials that include job applications, payroll

forms, transportation schedules, maps, tables, and graphs; for example,

locating a particular intersection on a street map, using a schedule to choose

the appropriate bus, or entering information on an application form.

Quantitative literacy— the knowledge and skills required to apply

arithmetic operations, either alone or sequentially, using numbers embedded

in printed materials; for example, balancing a checkbook, figuring out a tip,

completing an order form, or determining the amount of interest from a loan

advertisement.

The literacy scales provide a useful way to organize a broad array of tasks

and to report the assessment results. They represent a substantial improvement

over traditional approaches to literacy assessment, which have tended to report

on performance in terms of single tasks or to combine the results from diverse

tasks into a single, conglomerate score. Such a score fosters the simplistic notion

that “literates” and “illiterates” can be neatly distinguished from one another

based on a single cutpoint on a single scale. The literacy scales, on the other

● w

.

Introduction 3
hand, make it possible to profile the various ~-pes and levels of literacy among

different subgroups in our society. In so doing, thev help us to understand the

diverse information-processing skills associated ~vith the broad range of printed

and written materials that adults read and their many Imrposes for reading them.

In adopting the three scales for use in this survey, the committee’s aim was

not to establish a single national standard for literacy. Rather, it was to pro~ide an

interpretive scheme that would enable levels of prose, document, and quantitative

performance to be identified and allow descriptions of the knowledge and skills

associated with each level to be developed.

The prose, document, and quantitative scales were built initially to report on

the results of the young adult survey and were augmented in the survey of job

seekers. The National Adult Literacy Sumey’s Literacy Definition Committee

recommended that a new set of literacy tasks be developed to enhance the scales.

These tasks would take into account the folloiving, without losing the ability to

compare the National Adult Literacy Survey results to the earlier survevs:

. ,

● continued use of open-ended simulation tasks

● continued emphasis on tasks that measure a broad rarge of informationprocessing skills and cover a wide variety of contexts

● increased emphasis on simulation tasks that require brief written and/or oral

responses

● increased emphasis on tasks that ask respondents to describe how they

would set up and solve a problem

● the use of a simple, four-function calculator to solve selected quantitative

problems

Approximately 110 new assessment tasks \vere field tested, and 80 of these

were selected for inclusion in the survey, in addition to 85 tasks that were

administered in both the young adult and job-seeker assessments. By

administering a common set of tasks in each of the three literacy surveys, it is

possible to compare results across time and across population groups.

A large number of tasks had to be administered in the National Adult

Literacy Survey to ensure that the survey would provide the broadest possible

coverage of the literacy domains specified. Yet, no individual could be expected

to respond to the entire set of 165 literacy tasks. Accordingly, the survey was

designed to give each person participating in the study a subset of the total pool

of tasks, while at the same time ensuring that each of the 165 tasks was

administered to a nationally representative sample of adults. Literacy tasks were

assigned to sections that could be completed in about 15 minutes, and these

sections were then compiled into booklets, each of which could be completed in

●

4
2

about 45 minutes. During a personal interview, each survey respondent was

asked to complete one booklet.

In addition to the time allocated for the literacy tasks. approximately 20

minutes were devoted to obtaining background and personal information from

respondents. Two versions of the background questionnaire were administered,

one in English and one in Spanish, Major areas explored included:

background and demographics — country of birth, languages spoken or

read, access to reading materials, size of household, educational attainment of

parents, age, race/ethnicity, and marital status; education — highest grade

completed in school, current aspirations, participation in adult education classes,

and education received outside the country; labor market experiences

— employment status, recent labor market experiences, and occupation; income

— personal as well as household; and activities — voting behavior, hours

spent watching television, frequency and content of newspaper reading, and use

of literacy skills for work and leisure. These background data make it possible to

gain an understanding of the ways in which personal characteristics are

associated with demonstrated performance on each of the three literacy scales.g

.

Conducting the Survey

The National Adult Literacy Survey was conducted during the first eight months

of 1992 with a nationally representative sample of some 13,600 adults. More than

400 trained interviewers, some of whom were bilingual in English and Spanish,

visited nearly 27,000 households to select and interview adults age 16 and older,

each of whom was asked to provide personal and background information and to

complete a booklet of literacy tasks. Black and Hispanic households were

oversampled to ensure reliable estimates of literacy proficiencies and to permit

analyses of the performance of these subpopulations.

To give states an opportunity to explore the skill levels of their populations,

each of the 50 states was invited to participate in a concurrent assessment.

Twelve states—California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, New

Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington-elected to

participate in the State Adult Literacy Survey. In addition to the National Adult

Literacy Survey sample~, approximately 1,000 adults age 16 to 64 were surveyed

in each of these states.

To permit comparisons of the state and national results, the survey

instruments administered to the state and national samples were identical and the

z A more detailed description of the NALS design and framework can be found in an interim report:

A. Campbell, 1,S. Kirsch, and A. Kolstad, (1992, October). Assessing Literacy: i% Frawork

for the Nrrtionrd Adult Literrrcy Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Education

Statistics.

.

●

9
. .

data were gathered at the same time (except in Florida; its data collection was

conducted 1993.

Finally, more than 1,100 inmates in some 80 federal and state prisons were

included in the survey. Their participation helped to provide better estimates of

the literacy levels of the total population and make it possible to report on the

literacy proficiencies of this itnportant segment of society. To ensure

comparability with the national survey, the simulation tasks given to the prison

participants were the same as those given to the household survey population.

However, to address issues of particular relevance to the prison population, a

revised version of the background questionnaire was developed. This instrument

drew questions from the 1991 Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities

sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. ~epartment of Justice.

These included queries about current offenses, criminal history, and prison work

assignments, as well as about education and labor force experiences.

Responses from the national household, state, and prison samples were

combined to yield the best possible performance estimates. (Because of the

delayed administration, the results from the Florida state survey were not

included in the national estimates, however. ) In all, more than 26,000 adults

gave, on average, more than an hour of their time to complete the literacy tasks

and background questionnaires. Household survey participants who completed as

much of the assessment as their skills allowed were paid $20 for their time. The

demographic characteristics of the adults who participated in the National Adult

Literacy Survey are presented in table 1.

Further information on sampling, the survey administration, statistical analyses,

special studies, and the validity of the literacy scales is provided in the appendices.

Additional information will be available in a forthcoming technical report.

Special procedures to accommodate older adult respondents

In the earliest stages of planning, the National Adult Literacy Survey was to

assess only those individuals between the ages of 16 and 64. When the U.S.

Department of Education decided to include older adults in the survey, several

decisions had to be made to define the sample and to ensure that the special

needs of older respondents.were accommodated.

First, the government affirmed that the survey’s purpose was to evaluate the

literacy skills of adults living in households or prisons. Accordingly, individuals

residing in other types ofinstitutions—such as nursing homes, group homes, or

psychiatric facilities—would not be surveyed. This decision affects the results for

the older adult population, because many aging individuals live in nursing homes

and other non-household facilities. Thus, readers of this report should note that

.

●

6 ! I t d ti
~ Table 1 V-Z4LK=-

pa

#:Wil The National Adult Literacy Survey Sample

R Percentage

of National

n N/l 000 Population

Total 26,091 191,289 1 000/0

Sex

Male 11,770 92,098 48

Female 14,279 98,901 52

Age

16t024 4,593 34,978 18

25 to 59 17,784 116,876 61

60 to 69 2,267 20,171 11

70 to 79 1,005 13,836 7

80 years and older 442 5,428 3

Race/Ethnicity .

White 17,292 ‘144,968 76

Black 4,963 21,192 11

Asian/Pacific Islander 438 4,116 2

Hispanic 3,126 18,481 10

Other 83 729 0

Notes: The total population includes adults living in households and those in prison. The sample sizes

for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample sizes due to missing data. The race/ethnicity

categories are mutually exclusive. Some estimates for small subgroups of the population may be

slightly different from 1990 Census estimates due to the sampling procedures used. Percentages

below .5 are rounded to O.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy

Survey, 1992.

the data reflect the performance of older adults living in households or in prisons,

not of the entire older adult population.

Second, in developing the survey instruments, special care was taken to

include materials and tasks that were relevant to adults of widely varying ages.

After preliminary versions of the assessment instruments were developed and

after the field test was conducted, the literacy tasks were closely analyzed for

bias or “differential item functioning.” The goal is to identi$ any assessment

tasks that are likely to underestimate the proficiencies of a particular

subpopulation, whether it be older adults, females, or Black or Hispanic adults.

Tasks based on a passage printed in very small type might be flagged as biased

against older adults because their vision problems make it di~lcult for them to

●

●

●

I t d ti 7
read the print. Any assessment item that appeared to be biased against older

adults or against one of the other groups was excluded from the fhud survey.

Finally, interviewers were trained in special techniques for surveying older

individuals. For example, they were trained to record any statements that

respondents made concerning disabilities or problems (such as arthritis) that

might interfere \vith their performance in the assessment. As explained later, in

Appendi~ A, these notes were used to determine whether certain respondents

who did not complete the assessment were unable to do so for reasons related or

unrelated to their literacy skills.

Together these procedures raised the likelihood that the suney would

provide unbiased, accurate, and reliable information about the Iitemcy skills of

older adults in the United States. Y

F?epofiing the Resuits

The results of the National Adult Literacy Survey are reported using three scales,

each ranging from O to 500: a prose scale, a document scale, and a quantitative

scale. The scores on each scale represent degrees of pro-i3ciency along that

particular dimension of literacy. For example, a low score (below 225) on the

document scale indicates that a person has very limited skills in processing

information from tables, charts, graphs, maps, and the like (even those that are

brief and uncomplicated). On the other hand, a high score (above 375) indicates

advanced skills in performing a variety of tasks that involve the use of complex

documents.

Survey participants received proficiency scores according to their

performance on the survey tasks. A relatively small proportion of the respondents

answered only apart of the survey, and an imputation procedure \vas used to

make the best possible estimates of their proficiencies. This procedure and

related issues are detailed in Appendix A.

Some groups of respondents obtained similar scores on the three literacy

scales. This does not mean, however, that the underlying skills involved in prose,

document, and quantitative literacy are the same. Each scale provides some

unique information, especially when comparisons are made across groups

defined by variables such as race/ethnicity, education, and age.

The literacy scales allow us not only to summarize results for various

subpopulations but also to determine the relative difficulty of the literacy tasks

included in the survey. In other words, just as individuals received scale scores

according to their performance in the assessment, the literacy tasks received

specific scale values according to their difficulty, as determined by the

performance of the adults who participated in the survey Previous research has

shown that the difficulty of a literacy task, and therefore its placement on the

8 . . . . . . Introduction
literacy scale, is determined by three factors: the structure of the material —

for example, exposition, narrative, table, graph, map, or advertisement; the

content of the material and/or the context from which it is drawn — for example,

home, \vork, or community; and the nature of the task — that is, what the

individual is asked to do with the material, or his or her purpose for using it.)

The literacy tasks administered in the National Adult Literacy Survey

varied \videly in terms of materials, content, and task requirements, and thus in

terms of difficulty. This range is captured in figure 1, which describes some of

the literacy tasks and indicates their scale values.

Even a cursory review of this display reveals that tasks at the lower end of

each scale differ from those at the high end. A more careful analysis of the range

of tasks along each scale provides clear evidence of an ordered set of

information-processing skills and strategies. on the prose scale, for example,

tasks with low scale values ask readers to locate or identify information in brief,

familiar, or uncomplicated materials, while those at the high end ask them to

perform more demanding activities using materials that tend to be lengthy,

unfamiliar, or complex. Similarly, on the document and quantitative scales, the

tasks at the low end of the scale differ from thos~ at th~ high end in terms of the

structure of the material, the content and context of the material, and the nature of

the directive.

In an attempt to capture this progression of information-processing skills

and strategies, each scale was divided into five levels: Level 1 (O to 225),

Level 2 (226 to 275), Level 3 (276 to 325), Level 4 (326 to 375), an d

Level 5 (376 to 500). The points and score ranges that separate these levels on

each scale reflect shifts in the literacy skills and strategies required to perform

increasingly complex tasks. The survey tasks were assigned to the appropriate

point on the appropriate scale based on their difficulty as reflected in the

performance of the nationally representative sample of adults surveyed. Analyses

of the types of materials and demands that characterize each level reveal the

progression of literacy demands along each scale (figure 2).

While the literacy levels on each scale can be used to explore the range of

literacy demands, these data do not reveal the types of literacy demands that are

associated with particular contexts in this pluralistic society. That is, they do not

enable us to say what spetiific level of prose, document, or quantitative skill is

required to obtain, hold, or advance in a particular occupation, to manage a

household, or to obtain legal or community services, for example.

3 1,S. Kirsch and P. B. ilosenthal. (1990), ‘g Exploring Document Literacy: variables Underlying the Performance

of Young Adults,” Reading Research Quarterly, .25. pp. 5-30, P,B. Mosenthal and 1.S. Kirsch, (1992),

“Defining the Constructs of Adult Litemcy,” p~per presented at the National Reading Conference, San

Antonio, Texas. Additiomd information will be presented in the technical report on the National Adult Literacy

Survey.

‘+

Introduction 9
Figure 1

Difficulty Values of Selected Tasks Along the Prose, Document, and Quantitative Literacy Scales

Prose Document

149

210

224

226

250

275

280

304

316

328

347

359

362

374

382

410

423

Identify country in short article

Locate one piece of information

in sports article

Underline sentence explaining action

stated in shorl article

Underline meaning of a term given in

government brochure on supplemental

security income

f-mate two features of information in

sports article

Interpret instructions from an appliance

warranty

Write a brief letter explaining error

made on a credit card bill

Read a news article and identify

a sentence that provides interpretation

of a situation

Red lengthy article to identify two

behaviors that meet a stated condition

State m writing an argument made in

lengthy newspaper article

Explain difference between two typs

of employee benefits

Contrast views expressed in two

editorials on technologies available to

make fuel-efficient cars

Generate unfamiliar theme from short

poems

Compare two metaphors used in poem

Compare approaches stated in

narrative on growing up

Summarize two ways lawyers may

chaflenge prospective jurors

Interpret a brief phrase from a lengthy

msws article

69

151

180

214

232

245

259

277

296

314

323

342

348

379

387

396

Sign your name.

Lecate expiration date on driver’s license

Locate time of meeting on a form

Using pie graph, locate type of vehicle

having specific sales

Locate intersection on a meet map

Locate eligibility from table of I

employee benefits

Identify and enter background

information on application for sociaf

SeCUlity card

Identify inforrrration from bar graph

depicting source of energy and year

Use sign out sheet to res~nd to caJ

about resident

Use bus schedule to determine

appropriate bus for given set

of conditions

Enter informamm given into an

automobile maintenance record form

Identify the correct percentage meeturg

~pecitied crmdltinns from a table Of such

mformat]on

Use bus schedule to determine

appropriate bus for given set

of conditions

Use fable of information to determine

pattern in oil exports across years

Quantitative

191

238

246

270

278

308

325

331

350

368

375

Using fable comparing credt cards,

identify the two categories used and write

two differences between them

405

Use a table depicting information about

parental involvement in school survey to

write a paragraph summtizirrg extent to

which parents and teachers agree

Total a bank deposit entry

Calculate postage and fees for

certified mail

Determine difference in price between

tickets for two shows

Calculate total costs of purchase from

an order form

Using calculator, calculate difference

between regular and sale price from an

advertisement

Using calculator, determine the

discount from an oil bill if paid

within 10 days

Plan travel arrangements for meeting

using flight schedule

Determine correct change using

information in a menu

Using information stated in news article.

calculate amount of money that should

go to raising a child

Using eligibility pamphlet, calculate the

yearly amount a couple would receive

for basic supplemental security income

Calculate miles per gallon using

inforrrration given on mileage record

chart

Determine individual and total costs on

an order form for items in a catalog

Using inforrrration in news article,

calculate difference in times for

completing a race

Using calculator. deterrrsine the total

cost of carpet to cover a room

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Cemer for Education Statistics. National Adult Literacy Survey. 1992.
:.-

Figure 2

. . . . --, .. . . . ,. .,. , ‘. .,.... --—-.. .-.-.-, —- . . . . ,... .— -.. . . . . . --..-.——

Description of the Prose, Document, and Quantitative Literacy Levels

Most of the tasks in this level require

the reader to read relatively short text to

locate a single piece of information

which is identical to or synonymous

with the information given in the

question or directive. If plausible but

incorrect information is present in the

text, it tends not to be located near the

correct information.

Some tasks in this level require readers

to Iucate a single piece of information

in the texq however, several distracters

or plausible but incorrect pieces of

information may be present, or lowIevel inferences-may’ be required. Other

tasks require the reader to integrate two

or more pieces of information or to

compare and contrast easily identifiable

information based on a criterion

provided in the question or directive,

Tasks in this level tend to require

readers to mske Iitemf or synonymous

matches between the text and information

given in the task, or to make matches

that require low-level inferences. Other

tasks ask readers to integrate information

from dense or lengthy text that contains

no organizational aids such as headings.

Readers may also be asked to generate

a response based on information that

Document J

Tasks in [his level [end to require the

reader either to locate a piece of

information based on a literal match or

to enter ]nfomration from personal

knowledge onto a document, Little, if

~Y, dismcting information is present.

Tasks in this level are more varied than

those in Level 1. Some require the

readers to match a single piece of

information; however, several

distracters may be present, or the match

may require low-level inferences. Tasks

in this level may also ask the reader to

cycle through infornrauon in a

document or to integrate information

from various parts of a document.

Some tasks in this level require the

reader to integrate multiple pieces of

information from one or more

documents. Others ask readers to cycle

through rather complex tables or graphs

which contain information that is

irrelevant or inappropriate to the task.

can be easily identified in the text.

Distracting information is present, but

is not located near the correct information.

These tasks require readers to perform

multiple-feature matches srrd to

Tssks in this level, like those at the

previous levels, ask readers to perform

integrate or synthesize information multiple-feature matches. cvcle

from complex or lengthy passages.

More complex inferences are needed

to perform successfully. Conditional

information is frequently present in

tasks at this level and must be taken

into consideration by the reader.

Some tasks in this level require the

reader to search for information in

dense text which contains a number of

plausible distracters. Others ask

readers to make high-level inferences

or use specialized background

knowledge. Some tasks ask readers to

contrrrst complex information.

through ducuments, and integrate

information; however, they require a

greater degree of inferencing. Many of

these tssks require readers to provide

numerous respcmses but do not

designate how many responses are

needed. Conditional information is

afso present in the document tasks at

this level and must be taken into

account by the reader.

Tasks in this level require the reader

to sesrch through complex dkplays

that contain multiple distractorx, to

make high-level text-based inferences,

and to use specialized knowledge.

Quantitative

Tasks in this level require readers to

perform single, relatively simple

arithmetic operations. such as addition.

The numbers to be used are provided

and the arithmetic operation to be

performed is specified.

Tasks in this level typically reqture

readers to perform a single operation

using numbers that are either stated in

the task or easily located in the

material. The operation to be performed

may be stated in the question or easily

determined from the format of the

material (for example, an order form).

In tasks in this level, two or more

numbers are typically needed to solve

the problem, and these must be found in

the material. The operation(s) needed

cm be determined from the arithmetic

relation terms used in the question or

db-ective.

These tasks tend to require readers to

perform two or more sequential

operations or a single operation in

which the quantities are found in

different types of displays, or the

operations must be inferred from

semantic information given or drawn

from prior knowledge.

These tasks require readers to perform

multiple operations sequentially. They

must disembed the features of the

problem from text or rely on

background knowledge to determine

the quantities or operations needed.

Source: U.S. Ocpsrtment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992. —

11
Nevertheless,the relationships among performance on the three scales and

various social or economic indicators can provide valuable insights, and that is

the goal of this report.

This report examines the literacv skills of the older adult population, that is,

adults age 60 and older. Chapter 1 profiles the literacy skills of the older adult

population as a whole and of various subgroups defined by age, sex, education,

race/ethnicity, household income, visual impairment, and region. Chapter 2

compares the literacy proficiencies of the 60-and-older population with the under

60- population with respect to the variables of education, reason for Iea\ing

school, where literacy skills were acquired, help received with various materials

and language learned before starting school. Chapter 3 discusses economic issues

among the elderly including labor force participation, household income by sex.

race/ethnicity, and education. Chapter 4 deals with such subjects as volunteer

activity, library use, use of various media, and self-assessment of literacy abilities.

In interpreting the results of this study, readers should bear in mind that the

literacy tasks contained in this assessment and the adults invited to participate in

the survey are representative samples drawn from their two respective universes.

As such, they are subject to some measurable degree of uncertainty. Scientific

procedures employed in the study design and the scaling of literacy tasks,

however, permit a high degree of confidence in the resulting estimates of task

difficulty. Similarly, the sampling design and weighting procedures applied in this

survey assure that participants’ responses can be generalized to the populations of

interest.

When comparisons between various subpopulations are made, statistical

tests are applied to the data in order to establish that differences are significant.

These significance tests take into account the magnitude of the differences (for

example, the difference in average document proficiency between high school

and college graduates), the size of the standard errors associated with the numbers

being compared, and the number of comparisons being made. only statistically

significant differences (at the .05 level) are discussed in this report. Readers who

are interested in making their own comparisons are therefore advised not to use

the numbers alone to compare various groups, but rather to evaluate such

comparisons using statistical tests.4

4 To determine whether the difference between two groups is statistically significant, one must estimate the

degree of uncertainty (or the standard error) associated with the difference, To do so, one squares each group’s

standard error and, sums these squared standard errors, and then takes the square root of this sum. The

difference between the two groups plus or minus twice the standard error of the difference is the confidence

intervaf. If the confidence interval does not contain zero, then the difference between the two groups is said to

be statistically significant.

,

.’

I d i
The goal of this report is to provide useful information to those who wish

to understand the current status of literacy among the nation’s older adult

population and to strengthen existing programs and policies. In considering the

results, readers should keep in mind that this was a survey of Iiteracn’ only in the

English language. Thus, the results do not capture the literacy resources and

abilities that some respondents possess in languages other than English.

4 Note on Interpretations

In reviewing the information contained in this report, readers should be aware

that PO single factor determines what an individual’s literacy proficiencies will

be. AU of us develop our own unique repertoire of co~petencies depending on a

wide array of conditions and circumstances, including our family backgrounds,

educational attainments, interests and aspirations, economic resources, and

employment experiences. This survey focuses on some, but not all, of these

variables.

Furthermore, although the survey results reveal that certain characteristics

are related to literacy, it is impossible to determine, f~om a survey administered at

one point in time, the direction of these relationships. In other words, it is

impossible to identi$ the extent to which literacy shapes particular aspects of our

lives or is, in turn, shaped by them. For example, there is a strong relationship

between educational attainment and literacy proficiencies. on the one hand, it is

likely that staying in school longer does strengthen an individual’s literacy skills.

On the other hand, it is also true that those with more advanced skills tend to

remain in school longer. other variables, as well, are likely to play a role in the

relationship between literacy and education. In interpreting such relationships in

this report, the authors have emphasized that causal assertions are speculative.

A final note deserves emphasis. This report describes the literacy

proficiencies of various subpopulations defined by characteristics such as age,

sex, race, ethnicity, and educational background. While certain groups

demonstrated lower literacy skills than others on average, within every group

there were some individuals who performed well and some who performed

poorly. Accordingly, when one group is said to have lower average proficiencies

than another, this does not imply that all adults in the first group performed worse

than those in the second. Such statements are only intended to highlight

differences among the average proficiencies of groups and, therefore, do not

capture the variability within each group.

●

●

e

Introduction 13
14 . . . . . . Introduction
CHAPTER 1

Literacy in the Older Adult Population

T

~ his chapter profiles the prose, document, and quantitative literacy skills of

older adults in the United States—those age 60 and older. 1 In addition to

examining differences in performance within the older adult population, we

analyze the literacy proficiencies of older adults in comparison with those of

younger adults.’ The latter part of the chapter compares older adults’ selfassessed literacy skills with their demonstrated proficiencies. Finally, we

examine the extent to which adults in various age groups receive assistance with

various types of everyday literacy tasks, another indicator of their proficiencies.

.*

Assessing Literacy

As explained in the Introduction, each individual who participated in the National

Adult Literacy Survey was asked to complete a background questionnaire

requesting demographic and other information, as well as a booklet of prose,

document, and quantitative literacy tasks. Respondents’ literacy proficiencies

were calculated according to their performance on these tasks. The assessment

results are reported using three literacy scales, each ranging from O to 500: a

prose scale, a document scale, and a quantitative scale. The scores on each scale

represent degrees of proficiency along that particular dimension of literacy. For

example, a low score (below 225) on the document scale indicates that a person

has very limited skills in processing information from tables, charts, graphs,

maps, and the like (even those that are brief and uncomplicated). on the other

hand, a high score (above 375) indicates advanced skills in performing a variety

of tasks that involve the use of complex documents.

1 Age 60. rather than age 65, was used as the lower limit because older adulthuod is generally associated with

retirement, which generally occurs at about age 62. Many adults in their early 60s are-in transition to

retirement, and defining the older adult population as those age 65 and older would omit this important

segment of the population.

2 Readers seeking more detailed information on the literacy proficiencies of the under-60 population can tind

these data in the other reports on the Natiomd Adult Literacy Suwey, See, for example, Invin S. Kirsch,

Ann ]ungeblut, Lynn Jenkins, and Andrew Kolstad. (1993). Adult I,iterucy in America, Washington, DC.:

U.S. Department of Education.

●

●

✎

l5
-.

.

Throughout this report, adults’ literacy skills are examined in two Ivays. 1]~

one approach, we examine the percentages of adults who performed in each level

on the prose, document, and quantitative literacy scales. The five literaqr levels

defined on each scale are: Level 1 (ranging from O to 225), Level 2 (226 to 275),

Level 3 (276 to 325), Level 4 (326 to 3’75), and Level,5 (376 to 500). Appendix A

describes the literacy levels in detail and includes examples of the types of tasks

that are likely to be performed successfully by individuals performing in each

level of prose, document, and quantitative literacy. The second approach used to

report on the performance results focuses on the average proficiencies ofvarious

subpopulations on each of the three literacy scales. This information pro~-ides a

way to make general comparisons among groups.

Because each literacy level encompasses a range cm a given scale, the tasks

in any particular level are not homogeneous and neither are the individuals who

performed in that level. Tasks in the high end of the range for a given level are

more challenging than those in the low end. Similarly, individuals whose

proficiencies are in the high end of a level demonstrated success on a more

challenging set of litemcy tasks than those who scored in the low end. The group

of adults in Level 1 is especially heterogeneous, as it incdudes individuals who

successfully performed relatively undemanding literacy tasks, those who tried

to perform these tasks but did not succeed, and those with such limited skills

(or limited English proficiency) that they did not try to respond at all (see

Appendix A). Thus, while the literacy levels are discussed as distinct units, the

variations in performance within each level should be kept in mind.

-...‘Tfxxy; i~wtickncies in the CMer ,M,lH !%nul~t!an Cverail

Across the literacy scales, 39 to 47 percent of the older adult population scored in

Level 1 (figure 1.1, table 1.1). Translated into population terms, this means that

15 to 18 million of the 39 million adults age 60 and older in the United States

demonstrated skills in the lowest literacy level defined in this survey. These

individuals may be able to read short pieces of text to find single facts (prose

literacy), enter personal information on a form (document literacy), or add

numbers set up in column format (quantitative literacy). Some adults who

performed in the lower end of Level 1, however, may have difficulty performing

even these types of tasks.

The percentage of older adults who performed in Level 1 was higher on the

document literacy scale (47 percent) than on the prose (39 percent) or

quantitative (41 percent ) scales. This suggests that many older adults have

difficulty performing literacy tasks that involve the use of forms, schedules,

tables, and other types of documents that are often encountered in everyday life.

.

16 1
?

F!!l Figure 1.1

Percentages of older adults in each literacy level

and average literacy proficiencies

PROSE

Average proficiency: 238

501

Literacy level

DOCUMENT

Average proficiency: 224

.-

50-14 7

16

1 -

4

0

.

12 345

Literacy level

QUANTITATIVE

Average proficiency: 236

50

L

41

~ 40

~

& 30 27

z

22

~ 20

L.

i? 1(-J 8

2

01

2345

Literacy level

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

●

●

●

l l7
-.

Thirty-two percent of the older adult population performed in Level 2 on

the prose scale, while 33 percent scored in this level on the document scale and

27 percent scored in this level on the quantitative scale. In population terms.

this means that about 11 to 13 million older adults performed in the second

lowest litemcy level on each literacy scale. Older adults who performed in the

second level of prose literacy may be able to make low-level inferences and

integrate two or more pieces of information based on what they read. Older

adults who scored in this level on the document scale displayed the ability to

locate a piece of information in a document in which plausible but irrelevant

information was present. Further, they were likely to be able to integrate

information from different parts of a document. Adults age 60 and older who

performed in Level 2 on the quantitative literacy scale demonstrated skills in

adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing simple numbers found in printed

materials.

When the percentages who performed in the two lowest literacy levels are

combined, 71 percent of the older adult population scored in Level 1 or 2 on the

prose scale, 80 percent scored in these levels on the document scale, and 68

percent scored in these levels on the quantitative scale. -

Slightly more than 20 percent of older adults performed in Level 3 on the

prose and quantitative literacy scales. On the document scale, 16 percent

performed in this level. In population terms, this means that, on each literacy

scale, 6 to 9 million older adults scored in the third literacy level. Adults in

- Table I.1

F21

Azi\\- A:tF=F Percentages of older adults in each literacy level and

average literacy proficiencies

Literacy

scale

Prose

Document

Quantitative

Row percentages

WGT N Average

n (/1 ,000) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 proficiency

3,714 39,435 39 ~1 .3) 32 (1 .4) 21 (1.1) 6 (0.8) 1 (0.2) 238 (1 .5)

3,714 39,435 47 (1.1) 33 (1 .2) 16 (0.9) 4 (0.6) 0’(0. 1 ) 224 (1 .5)

3,714 39,435 41 (1 .2) 27 (0.9) 22 (1 .0) 8 (0.6) 2 (0.3) 236 (2.0)

n = samcde size WGT N = Dowlation size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total

sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population ‘values can “be said to be

within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

+ Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to O.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

> .

18 1
-.

.

Level 3 on the prose scale were likely to be able to integrate information from

relatively long or dense text, and those performing in this level on the

document scale displayed skills in integrating multiple pieces of information in

documents. Adults in the third level of quantitative literacy were likely to

succeed with arithmetic operations using two or more numbers found in text.

Just 6 percent of older adults performed in Level 4 on the prose scale.

They were likely to be able to synthesize information from lengthy or complex

passages. Four percent scored in Level 4 on the document scale, indicating

that they were successful in making inferences based on forms and other

documents, Eight percent performed in the fourth level of quantitative literacy.

These individuals were likely to be able to perform sequential arithmetic

operations using numbers found in different types of displays. Across the

literacy scales, an estimated 1.5 to 3 million older adults demonstrated literacy

skills associated with Level 4.

Less than one million older adults performed in the highest level of prose,

document, or quantitative literacy. Only 1 to 2 percent scored in Level 5 on the

prose and quantitative scales, and less than 1 percent scored in this level on the

document scale. To perform in the highest level of prose literacy, respondents

must contrast information found in written materials, make high-level

inferences, or search for information in dense text. On the quantitative scale,

they must determine features of arithmetic problems by examining text or

using background knowledge and then perform multiple arithmetic operations.

On the document scale, they must search and use complex displays. The results

indicate that most older adults are likely to have difficulty performing such

tasks with a high degree of consistency.

The average proficiency results repeat the general pattern observed in the

literacy levels. The average prose and quantitative scores of adults age 60 and

older (238 and 236, respectively) are higher than the average document score

(224). Thus, on the prose and quantitative literacy scales, the average

proficiencies of older adults lie within the low end of the Level 2 range, while on

the document scale, their average score is in the high end of the Level 1 range.

Differences in Literacy Proficiencies

Within the Older Aduit Population

Within the older adult population, the percentages of older adults who

performed in the two lowest literacy levels tend to increase with age (table 1.2).

Across the literacy scales, approximately two-thirds to three-quarters of adults

age 80 and older performed in Level 1, compared with about one-third to onehalf of those under age 80. Again the findings on the document scale are

l9
especially striking. Three-quarters of adults age 80 and older performed in

Level 1 on this scale; 96 percent performed in Level 1 or 2. These results

indicate that most adults age 80 and older are likely to be able to perform only

the least challenging literacy tasks using relatively simple documents.

Performance is somewhat better among 60- to 69-year-olds and 70- to 79-yearolds; still, more than 70 percent of adults age 60 to 69 and more than 80

percent of adults age 70 to 79 performed in Level 1 or 2 on the document

literacy scale.

Average prose, document, and quantitative proficiencies also tend to

decrease as age increases. For example, adults age 60 to 69 have an average

prose literacy score of 252, compared with 231 for those age 70 to 79 and just

200 for those age 80 and older. Similar patterns occur on the document and

quantitative literacy scales. On all three scales, the average proficiencies of adults

age 80 and older are within the Level 1 range, while those of adults under age

F

Table 1.2

J& .

a

m Percentages of older adults in each literacy level

and average literacy proficiencies, by age

Literacy scale/ Row percentages

age WGT N Average

n (/1 ,000) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 proficiency

Prose

60 to 69 2,267 20,171 30 (1 .7) 33 (1 .9) 27 (1 .3) 8 (0.9) 1 (0.3) 252 (1 .7)

70 to 79 1,005 13,836 42 (2.3) 33 (2.2) 19 (1 .9) 5 (1.5) 1 (0.4) 231 (2.9)

80 and older 442 5,428 66 (3.1) 27 (3.5) 6 (1 .3) 1 (1 .3) 0’(0.2) 200 (3.9)

Document

60 to 69 2,267 20,171 37 (1 .5) 37 (1 .4) 21 (1 .4) 5 (0.8) 1 (0.2) 239 (1 .6)

70 to 79 1,005 13,836 52 (2.1) 32 (2.2) 13 (1 .5) 3 (0.9) 0’(0. 1 ) 218 (2.6)

80 and older 442 5,428 75 (2.4) 21 (2.7) 4 (1.6) 0’(0.5) 0’(0.0) 185 (4.0)

Quantitative

60 to 69 2,267 20,171 31 (1.5) 29 (1 .5) 26 (1 .5) 11 (1 .3) 2 (0.4) 253 (2.0)

70 to 79 1,005 13,836 45 (2.0) 25 (2.2) 21 (1.8) 7 (1.0) 2 (0.6) 228 (3.0)

80 and older 442 5,428 65 (2.9) 24 (2.5) 9 (2.0) 2 (1.0) 1 (0.5) 192 (5.4)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total

sample sizes, due to missin”g data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errora. The true population ‘values can be said to be

within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95~0 certainty.

+ Percentages less than 0.5 are roundad to O.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

.

20 1
80 tend to be within the Level 2 range. An exception: the average document

score of adults age 70 to 79 is also in the Level 1 range.

Major differences in performance exist between older and younger persons.

Adults age 60 and older demonstrated significantly lower average prose,

document, and quantitative proficiencies than adults age 16 to 59. The average

prose score for younger adults is 282, which lies within the range for Level 3,

while the average prose score for older adults is only 238, which falls in the

Level 2 range (table 1.3). Similar patterns are found in the area of quantitative

literacy. On this scale, the average score of the under-60 population is 280,

while that of the older adult population is 236.

-~

n

Table 1.3

~

Percentages of adults in each literacy level and

average literacy proficiencies, by age

Literacy scale/ Row percentages

age WGT N Average

n (/1 ,000) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 proficiency

Prose

60 and older 3,714 39,435 39 (1 .3) 32 (1 .4) 21 (1.1) 6 (0.8) 1 (0.2) 238 (1 .5)

16t059 22,377 151,854 16 (0.3) 25 (0.6) 35 (0.8) 20 (0.5) 4 (0.2) 282 (0.6)

Document

60 and older 3,714 39,435 47 (1.1) 33 (1 .2) 16 (0.9) 4 (0.6) 0’(0.1 ) 224 (1 .5)

16t059 22,377 151,854 17 (0.4) 27 (0.5) 34 (0.6) 18 (0.5) 3 (0.2) 278 (0.6)

Quantitative

60 and older 3,714 39,435 41 (1 .2) 27 (0.9) 22 (1 .0) 8 (0.6) 2 (0.3) 236 (2.0)

16t059 22,377 151,854 17 (0.4) 25 (0.6) 34 (0.7) 20 (0.4) 4 (0.2) 280 (0.6)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total

sample tizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population ‘values can “be said to be

within 2 standard emors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

+ Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to O.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

.*—.

● —

Ch t l 2l
The differences in document literacy skills between the two age groups

are even more dramatic. Adults under 60 had an average document score of

278, while older adults’ average score was 224. S~ated differently, older adults

performed in the high end of the Level 1 range, on average, while adults under 60

scored in the low end of the Level 3 range.

As signaled by the average performance results, adults age 60 and older

were more likely than younger adults to perform in the lower levels on each

literacy scale and less likely to attain the higher levels.

On each of the three literacy scales, the percentage of older adults who

performed in Level 1 is more than twice the percentage of adults under 60 who

did so. Thirty-nine percent of the older adults scored in the lowest level of prose

literacy, compared with 16 percent of the under-60 population. On the document

and quantitative scales, 47 and 41 percent, respectively, of adults age 60 and

older scored in Level 1, compared with 17 percent of younger adults.

On the prose and document scales, older adults were also more likely than

those under 60 to score in Level 2. On the quantitative scale, however, the

percentages of older and younger adults who scored in this level are about the

same. .-

Combining the percentages of individuals who scored in Level 1 and 2,

more than two out of three persons age 60 and older scored in the two lowest

levels of prose (71 percent) and quantitative literacy (68 percent). Four out of

five (80 percent) scored in the two lowest levels of document literacy. In contrast,

on each of the literacy scales, roughly four out of ten adults under 60 (41 to 44

percent) scored in Level 1 or 2.

Across the literacy scales, younger adults (34 to 35 percent ) were more

likely than older adults (about 16 to 20 percent) to perform in Level 3. Thus, the

distribution of performance across Levels 1,2, and 3 is opposite for the younger

and older adult populations. For adults age 60 and older, the percentage of

respondents decreases in each successive level, while for adults under age 60, it

rises.

On each of the literacy scales, younger adults were more likely than older

individuals to perform in Levels 4 and 5. For example, on the prose scale, 20

percent of the under-60 population performed in Level 4, while 4 percent in

Level 5. In contrast, only 6_percent and 1 percent of older adults, respectively,

attained these levels.

22 1
Many older adults clelmonstrated limited literacy skills in the assessment. but do

they perceive their skills as being limited? To answer this question, we analyzed

responses to a survev question that asked individuals to indicate how well thev

understand, speak, read, and write English, and how well they do arithmetic

problems when they have to get the numbers from written materials.

Younger adults were more likely than older adults to report that they do

these various literacy activities very well (table 1.4 and tables B 1.1 and B1.2 in

Appendix B). In both age groups, respondents were most likely to describe

~ Table 1.4

Fa

qk= Percentages of adults, by self-reported

literacy proficiencies in English and by age

‘Row percentages

Area of Iiteracyl

age WGT N Not welI/

r-r (/1 000) Very well Well not at all

Understand

60 and older 3,709 39,417 78 (1 .0) 19 (0.9) 3 (0.3)

16t059 22,367 151,788 82 (0.5) 14 (0.5) 3 (0.2)

Speak

60 and older 3,708 39,385 68 (1.1) 28 (1.1) 4 (0.5)

16t059 22,360 151,696 73 (0.9) 23 (0.8) 4 (0.2)

Read

60 and older 3,701 39,319 66 (1.1) 25 (1 .0) 8 (0.7)

16t059 22,340 151,608 72 (0.7) 22 (0.6) 7 (0.3)

Write

60 and older 3,692 39,219 60 (1 .4) 28 (1 .2) 12 (1 .0)

16t059 22,307 151,429 65 (0.8) 26 (0.7) 9 (0.3)

Do arithmetic

60 and older 3,706 39,350 50 (1 .2) 33 (1 .0)

16t059

17 (0.9)

22,355 151,673 54 (0.9) 35 (0.8) 11 (0.3)

n = samDle size: WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to

the total” sample sizes, due “to” missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population values

can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95°A certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

●

●

●
themselves as understanding English very well (78 percent of older adults and

82 percent of younger adults) and least likely to describe themselves as doing

arithmetic very well (50 percent of older adults and 54 percent of younger

adults ). About the same percentages of younger and older adults reported that

they do not understand, speak, or read well, but older adults were more likely

than younger individuals to describe themselves as not writing or doing

arithmetic well.

Self-reported information appears to be a good relative indicator of literacy

skills, since there is a relationship between respondents’ demonstrated

proficiencies in the assessment and their own evaluations of their skills (table

1.5). Self assessments appear to be somewhat optimistic, however. Individuals

tended to rate their literacy skills somewhat higher than w’ould appear to be

justified on the basis of their performance in the literacy survey.

On all three literacy scales, older persons who said they perform various

literacy activities very well displayed higher average proficiencies than those

who said they perform these tasks well. The latter group, in turn, outperformed

those who reported that they do not do them well. For example, the average prose

score of older adults who reported reading very well is 255, compared with 225

for those who reported reading well and 137 for those who reported not reading

well (or at all).

Although these variations in performance by self assessment are significant

and consistent, the self assessments by themselves do not seem to be fully

accurate when considered in light of demonstrated skills, particularly for those

who claim to do various types of literacy tasks very well or well. Older adults

who reported that they read, write, and do arithmetic very well performed, on

average, in the Level 2 range on each literacy scale, while those who said they do

them well performed, on average, in the Level 1 to Level 2 range. Since adults in

the two lowest literacy levels displayed relatively limited proficiencies, these

data indicate that self-reported accounts may understate the extent of the literacy

problems among older adults.

On the other hand, the self assessments of those who said they do not read,

write, or do arithmetic well are consistent with the performance results. On each

literacy scale, these individuals scored well below 200, on average-in the Level

1 range.

Results for the younger population parallel those for older persons. Across

the literacy scales, adults age 16 to 59 who said they understand, speak, read,

and write English, and do arithmetic very well performed, on average, in Level

3. These individuals tended to outperform their peers who reported doing

these activities well, who tended to outperform peers who reported not doing

these activities well.

—’*

●

24 . . . . . . Chapter 1
While the average literacy proficiencies of younger adults are consistently

higher than those of older adults, the age differences in performance are smaller

among individuals who reported not doing various literacy activities well. For

example, the average prose score of older adults who read very well (255) is 44

points below that of their younger counterparts (299), whereas the average prose

score of older adults who reported not reading well or at all (137) is only 17

points below that of their younger counterparts ( 154).

I!l Table 1.5 Ah\

D Average prose literacy proficiencies of adults, by

self-reported literacy proficiencies in English and by age

Area of literacy/

Average proficiencies

age WGT N Not well/

n (/1 000) .Very well Well not at all

Understand

60 and older 3,709 39,41 7 249 (1 .7) 211 (3.1) 117 (7.4)!

16t059 22,367 151,788 294 (0.6) 247 (1 .8) 132 (2.4)

Speak

60 and older 3,708 39,385 250 (1 .8) 222 (3.1) 131 (8.2)!

16t059 22,360 151,696 296 (0.7) 261 (1 .3) 142 (2.6)

Read

60 and older 3,701 39,319 255 (1 .7) 225 (2.8) 137 (4.6)

16t059 22,340 151,608 299 (0.6) 261 (1 .2) 154 (2.7)

Write

60 and older 3,692 39,21 9 257 (2.1) 231 (2.7) 160 (3.7)

16t059 22,307 151,429 300 (0.6) 270 (1 .3) 179 (2.4)

Do arithmetic

60 and older 3,706 39,350 257 (2.1) 236 (2.5) 181 (4.1)

16t059 22,355 151,673 302 (0.8) 274 (0.9) 206 (2.4)

n = sample size WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to

the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errora. The true population values

can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

.

●

Ch t l 25
. .

. . ;.

To pro~tide another measure of older adults’ literacy skills, the survey asked

respondents 11OJV much help they receive from family members and friends with

literac} activities, including filling out formsj reading newspaper articles or other

written information; printed information associated with government agencies,

public companies, etc.; writing notes and letters; and using basic arithmetic, such

as in filling out order forms or balancing a checkbook. The response options

were: a lot, some, a little, or none.

Regardless of the type of material, adults age 80 and older were about twice

as likely as adults age 60 to 69 and individuals age 70 to 79 to say that they

receive a lot of help (table 1.6). For example, 14 percent, of adults age 80 and

older said they receive a lot of assistance with newspapers, compared with 5

percent of 60-to 69-year-olds and 7 percent of 70- to 79-Year-olds. About the

same percentages of 70-to 79-year-olds as 60- to 69-year-olds reported receiving

a lot of help with the various types of literacy activities.

Sixty- to 69-year-olds were more likely to receive a lot of help with forms

(15 percent) and printed information (9 percent) than ti~h other types of

materials, while ’70- to 79-year-olds were more likely to get a lot of help with

forms (17 percent) and printed information (13 percent) than with other

materials. Adults age 80 and older were more likely to receive help with forms

(32 percent) than with other materials, except printed information (25 percent).

Compared with 25- to 59-year-olds, adults age 60 to 69 were more likely to

report receiving a lot of assistance with forms and letters; those age 70 to 79 were

more likely to report receiving a lot of assistance with forms, printed information,

and arithmetic; and those age 80 and older were more likely to report receiving a

lot of assistance with all the activities listed. When one compares the percentages

of older and younger individuals who reported getting no help with each of the

different types of literacy activities and materials, however, the figures for adults

age 60 to 69 and ’70 to 79 tend to be about the same as for adults age 25 to 59.

Within each age group there are differences in average literacy proficiencies

by the amount of help received with filling out forms (table 1.7), For adults age

60 to 69, those who get a lot of help have lower average document scores (202)

than those who get some, a little, or no help (237, 239, and 251, respectively). In

addition, adults who receive some help have lower average proficiencies than

those who receive none. For adults age 70 to 79, the average document score of

those who reported getting a lot of help (182) is considerably lower than those of

individuals who reported getting a little or no help (219 and 232, respectively).

For adults age 80 and older, individuals who receive a lot of assistance with

forms have lower document scores, on average, than those who did not receive

any help.

.

● ☛

26 Ch t 1
>

F’ Table 1.6 .- /AAK\- A:K#-J

Percentages of adults, by amount of help received

with different literacy activities and by age

Row percentages

Activity/

age WGT N

n (/1 ,000) A lot Some A little None

Filling out forms

16t024 4,571 34,873 16 (0.9) 27 (1 .0) 26 (1.1) 32 (1.1)

25 to 59 17,768 116,817 9 (0.3) 16 (0.4) 21 (0.5) 54 (0.6)

60 to 69 2,265 20,164 15 (0.9) 16 (1 .0) 17 (0,9) 52 (1 .6)

70 to 79 1,001 13,789 17 (1 .2) 16 (l\4) 18 (1 .3) 49 (1 .6)

80 and older 440 5,413 32 (2.9) 12 (2.1) 18 (2.1) 37 (2.7)

Reading newspapers

16t024 4,569 34,867 6 (0.5) 15 (0.9) 24 (0.8) 54 (1.1)

25 to 59 17,764 116,758 5 (0.2) 9 (0.3) 16 (0.4) 70 (0.5)

60 to 69 2,266 20,167 5 (0.6) 10 (0.9) 16 (1.0) 69 (1 .4)

70 to 79 1,002 13,807 7 (0.9) 11 (1 .3) 14 (1.0) 68 (1 .5)

80 and older 440 5,413 14 (2.1) 11 (1 .9) 12 (1.5) 62 (2.9)

Reading printed

information

16t024 4,561 34,780 11 (0.7) 22 (1 .0) 28 (0.8) 39 (1.1)

25 to 59 17,745 116,681 7 (0.3) 14 (0.4) 23 (0.4) 56 (0.5)

60 to 69 2,262 20,155 9 (0.8) 15 (1 .0) 21 (1 .2) 55 (1 .5)

70 to 79 1,000 13,785 13 (1 .2) 13 (1 .3) 19 (1 .7) 55 (2.0)

80 and older 440 5,413 25 (2.3) 15 (2.3) 16 (2.1) 45 (3.0)

Writing letters

16t024 4,560 34,821 4 (0.4) 8 (0.6) 14 (0.7) 73 (0.9)

25 to 59 17,744 116,683 4 (0.2) 7 (0.2) 11 (0.4) 77 (0.4)

60 to 69 2,262 20,132 6 (0.5) 6 (0.7) 9 (0.8) 79 (1 .2)

70 to 79 999 13,756 7 (0.8) 7 (1.1) 7 (1.0) 79 (1 .7)

80 and older 438 5,384 18 (2.1) 8 (1 .9) 4 (0.9) 70 (2.8)

Using arithmetic

16t024 4,570 34,856 5 (0.4) 9 (0.6) 14 (0.7) 73 (1 .0)

25 to 59 17,765 116,796 4 (0.2) 6 (0.2) 8 (0.3) 83 (0.3)

60 to 69 2,266 20,167 5 (0.6) 6 (0.6) 7 (0.7) 82 (1 .0)

70 to 79 1,002 13,807 8 (0.8) 7 (1.1) 6 (0.7) 78 (1 .5)

80 and older 439 5,388 17 (2.1) 8 (1 .3) 7 (1.1) 68 (1 .9)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95°A certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

●

●

●

Ch l 27
>.

_ Table 1.7

RJllI

A2Kz- f:k Average proficiencies of adults, by the amount of help

received with different literacy activities and by age

Average proficiencies

Activity/age

WGT N

n (/1 ,000) A lot Some A little None

Filling out forms Document

16t024 4,571 34,873 257 ( 2.9) 275 ( 2.1) 288 ( 2.0) 283 ( 1.9)

25 to 59 17,768 116,817 219 ( 3.0) 261 ( 2.1) 283 ( 1.6) 290 ( 0.9)

60 to 69 2,265 20,164 202 ( 4.9) 237 ( 2.9) 239 ( 4.0) 251 ( 2.1)

70 to 79 1,001 13,789 182 ( 7.3) 210 ( 6.6) 219 ( 5.6) 232 ( 3.0)

80 and older 440 5,413 155 ( 6.5) 194 ( 9.3)! 1~5 ( 6.0)! 209 ( 4.7)

Reading newspapers Prose

16t024 4,569 34,867 226 ( 5.2) 257 ( 2.6) 283 ( 2.0) 287 ( 1.3)

25 to 59 17,764 116,758 176 ( 4.9) 246 ( 2.2) 280 ( 1.6) 295 ( 0.8)

60 to 69 2,266 20,167 174 ( 9.7)! 232 ( 7.1)! 250 ( 4.9) 262 ( 1.9)

70 to 79 1,002 13,807 158 ( 8.7)! 212 ( 6.6) 241 ( 6.6) 239 ( 3.3)

80 and older 440 5,413 167 (12.4)! 187 (1 1.7)! 203 (10.0)! 209 ( 4.2)

Reading printed

information ProsS

16t024 4,561 34,780 250 ( 3.8) 277 ( 2.7) 287 ( 1.5) 279 ( 1.8)

25 to 59 17,745 116,681 209 ( 3.1) 268 ( 1.9) 291 ( 1.6) 292 ( 1.0)

60 to 69 2,262 20,15 5 192 ( 6.8)! 247 ( 3.6) 260 ( 3.7) 261 ( 2.2)

70 to 79 1,000 13,785 172 ( 7.1)! 216 ( 6.9) 249 ( 5.0) 242 ( 4.3)

80 and older 440 5,413 173 ( 8.1)! 195 (12.6)! 214 ( 5.8)! 211 ( 4.6)

Reading printed

information Document

16i024 4,561 34,780 251 ( 3.8) 277 ( 2.3) 289 ( 1.6) 279 ( 1.7)

25 to 59 17,745 116,681 207 ( 3.0) 264 ( 2.0) 287 ( 1.3) 286 ( 0.9)

60 to 69 2,262 20,155 182 ( 5.2)! 236 ( 3.8) 248 ( 3.4) 247 ( 2.3)

70 to 79 1,000 13,785 164 ( 7.4)! 208 ( 4.8) 237 ( 4.6) 227 ( 3.6)

80 and older 440 5,413 149 ( 7.3)! 188 (10.2)! 206 ( 6.9)! 197 ( 4.7)

Writing letters Prose

16t024 4,560 34,821 211 ( 7.1) 254 ( 4.0) 270 ( 2.8) 286 ( 1.2)

25 to 59 17,744 116,683 180 ( 4.3) 247 ( 2.4) 277 ( 1.9) 293 ( 0.8)

60 to 69 2,262 20,132 180 ( 9.0)! 230 ( 7.1)! 250 ( 5.9)! 260 ( 1.6)

70 to 79 999 13,756 163 (1 0.6)! 214 ( 9.0)! 231 (1 1.0)! 239 ( 3.5)

80 and older 438 5,384 173 (10.9)! --- --- 209 ( 3.6)

Using arithmetic Quantitative

16t024 4,570 34,856 216 ( 6.3) 239 ( 3.8) 266 ( 2.9) 284 ( 1.1)

25 to 59 17,765 116,796 190 ( 4.7) 231 ( 2.9) 259 ( 2.1) 292 ( 0.7)

60 to 69 2,266 20,16 7 162 ( 9.3)! 216 ( 7.6)! 229 ( 7.2)! 263 ( 2.2)

70 to 79 1,002 13,807 151 (10.4)! 181 (13.7)! 214 ( 9.4)! 242 ( 3.2)

80 and older 439 5,388 130 (11 .4)! --- --- 210 ( 4.5)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to

the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population values

can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95~0 certainty.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

--- Sample size is too small to provide a reliable proficiency estimate.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

—**0

28 1
Because much of the data for the other activities and materials should be

interpreted with caution, not many comparative statements about proficiencies

can be made with certainty. There is, however, a consistent pattern in these

results: the proficiencies of adults who receive less help with various types of

literacy tasks tend to be higher than those of adults who receive more help. For

example, on both the prose and document literacy scales, 60-to 69-year-olds and

70- to 79-year-olds who reported getting little or no help with printed information

earned higher average literacy scores than those who reported getting some help.

Some intriguing patterns emerge when older and younger individuals are

compared. Adults age 60 to 69 who reported receiving a lot of help with forms

have an average document score of 202, which is about the same as the average

score of 25- to 59-year-olds. Although the data on the other types of activities or

materials should be interpreted with caution, adults age 60 to 69 and those age 25

to 59 who reported receiving a lot of help with reading newspapers, printed

information, and writing letters also seem to have comparable prose

proficiencies, on average. However, the average prose scores of adults age 70 to

79 and adults age 80 and older who reported receiving a lot of help with forms

are lower than those of adults age 25 to 59 (182, 153, and 219, respectively). This

pattern also appears to hold true for adults who receive help reading printed

information and using arithmetic, but again the data for the two older age groups

should be interpreted with caution.

*

●

☛

Chapter l. . . ...29
The performance results suggest that many older adults are likely to have

difficulty perfbrtning various types of literacy tasks. The average prose score of

adults age 60 ancl older is 238; their average document and quantitati~’e

proficiencies are 224 and 236, respectively. Adults age 60 to 69 tended to

outperform adults age 70 to 79 who, in turn, tended to outperform those age 80

and older.

Thirty-nine percent of the older adults assessed performed in Level 1 on the

prose scale, while 47 percent performed in this level on the document scale and

41 percent scored in this level on the quantitative scale. At least two-thirds of

older adults performed in Level 1 or 2 on the prose and quantitative scales, and

four-fifths scored in the two lowest levels of document literacy.

The average prose, document, and quantitative proficiencies of the older

adult population are lower than those of the under-60 population. In general,

older adults were more likely than younger individuals to score in Levels 1 and 2

on each literacy scale (with the exception of Level 2 on the quantitative scale).

According to self-reported information, older adul~ appear to believe that

their literacy skills are better than what the actual assessment results indicate.

Adults age 60 and older who reported that they read, write, or do arithmetic very

well performed, on average, only in the Level 2 range on each of the literacy

scales. In contrast, the average literacy scores of adults under 60 who reported

reading, writing, or doing arithmetic very well were in the Level 3 range. The

performance results for adults who reported not doing these activities well bear

out their self-reported evaluations. These adults had average proficiencies below

200.

In general, the older the adult, the more assistance he or she receives with

various types of literacy-related tasks, Adults age 80 and older were more likely

than younger adults to report getting a lot of help with different types of tasks.

Sixty- to 69-year-olds and 70-to 79-year-olds were more likely than adults under

60 to say they get a lot of help with forms and printed information. Although

much of the data should be interpreted with caution, adults who receive the most

help with different literacy tasks appear to demonstrate lower average literacy

proficiencies than those who receive no help,

*

30 . . . . . . Chapter 1
I

CHAPTER 2

Literacy Prq?les for Various Subgroups

of the Older Adult Population

wbile the first chapter examined the literacy skills of older adults and

compared these with the skills displayed by younger adults, this chapter

explores the performance of those in various subgroups of the older adult

population. Relationships between literacy and education among older and

younger adults are explored, as are the literacy skills of various subgroups,

including those defined by race/ethnicity, language background, \tisual

impairment, sex, and region of the country.

.-

Level of Education

The education system is a primary means of transmitting literacy. Not

surprisingly,then, older adults’ prose, document, and quantitative literacy

proficiencies tend to vary according to their level of education. On average,

literacy scores increase as level of education rises. On the prose scale, for

example, older adults who did not receive a high school diploma have an

average score of 200; those who earned a high school diploma or its equivalent,

a General Educational Development ( GED ) certificate, have an average score

of 253; and those who completed some postsecondary education have an

average score of 282 (table 2. 1).

These differences in performance by level of education are also reflected

in the literacy level results. On the prose and quantitative scales, 65 percent of

older adults who lacked high school diplomas performed in Level 1. On the

document scale, the figure is 73 percent. older adults who had earned at least

a high school diploma or GED were far less likely to score in this level. Twentyfour to 37 percent of older adults with a high school diploma or GED and 13 to

18 percent of those with some postsecondary education performed in the

lowest level on each literacy scale.

Very few adults age 60 and older who had ended their education before or

upon completing high school performed in Level 4 or 5. on the other hand, 10

to 20 percent of older adults who had completed some postsecondary

education performed in Level 4, and 1 to 5 percent scored in Level 5.

●

●

●
>

_ Table 2.1

m

K..

Percentages of older adults in each literacy level and average

literacy proficiencies, by level of education

Literacy scale/ Row percentages

highest level

of education WGT N Average

n (/1 ,000) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Proficiency

Prose

O to 12 years 1,482 17,351 65 (1.9) 27 (1.8) 7 (1.4) 1 (0.4)

High school/GED

0’(0.0) 200 (2.5)

967 10,481 24 (2.3) 44 (2.7) 27 (2.5) 4 (1.1)

Postsecondary

0’(0.2) 253 (2.4)

1,256 11,432 13 (1.6) 30 (2.4) 38 (1.7) 16 (2.1) 3 (0.8) 282 (2.6)

Document

O to 12 years 1,482 17,351 73 (1.8) 23 (1.8) 4 (1.0) 0’(0.3)

High school/GED

0’(0.0) 189 (2.4)

967 10,481 37 (2.0) 44 (2.1) 17 (2.5) 2 (0.7)

Postsecondary

0’(0.1) 237 (2.1)

1,256 11,432 18 (1.5) 38 (2.2) 33 (2.2) 10 (1.7) 1 (0.3) 268 (2.1)

Quantitative

O to 12 years 1,482 17,351 65 (2.4) 22 (2.2) 10 (1 .4)

High school/GED

2 (0.5) 1 (0.3) 192 (3.4)

967 10,481 28 (1 .9) 36 (2.2) 28 (2.7) 8 (1 .3)

Postsecondary

1 (0.4) 253 (2.2)

1,256 11,432 13 (1 .3) 27 (2.3) 35 (2.6) 20 (1 .8) 5 (1.1) 287 (2.7)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total

sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population values can be said to be

within 2 standard errora of the sample estimates with 95°A certainty.

+ Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to O.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Suwey, 1992.

Comparing levels of education among older and younger adults

As reported in Chapter 1, the literacy proficiencies of older adults tend to be

lower than those of younger adults, and even within the older adult population,

skills appear to decline with age. Given the strong association between

education and literacy, a question that naturally arises is, to what extent can

these differences in performance across the age groups be explained by

differences in levels of education? Analyzing the educational attainments of

older and younger adults helps to illuminate the relationship between literacy

and aging.

The gap in median years of schooling between younger and older adults

has narrowed somewhat in the past 30 years and is expected to decrease

further by the year 2000.1 The educational attainments of the older adult

‘ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1991). Aging Amwica. Washington, DC: Department of

Health and Human Services. p. 189.

●

● ☛

32 Ch t 2
population will increase significantly in the coming years because younger

cohorts tend to have completed more education than their predecessors.

Nonetheless, today’s older adults tend to have less education than younger

adults. In the National Adult Literacy Survey, 51 percent of individuals

between the ages of 25 and 59 reported having completed some postsecondary

education, compared with 33 percent of adults age 60 to 69 (table 2.2).

Conversely, only 18 percent of those age 25 to 59 had not earned a high school

diploma or GED, compared with 38 percent of 60-to 69-year-olds. About the

same percentages of adults age 25 to 59 and those age 60 to 79 (roughly 30

percent) reported that a high school diploma or GED was their highest level of

education.

Even within the older adult population, educational attainment tends to

decline with age. Individuals age 60 to 69 were less likely than those age 70 to

79 and those age 80 and older to report that they lacked a high school diploma

or GED. Thirty-eight percent of 60- to 69-year-olds had not earned this

credential, compared with 45 percent of 70- to 79-year-olds and 64 percent of

adults age 80 and older. Conversely, 60- to 69-year-olds (33 percent) were more

likely than those in the older groups (27 and Z1 percent, respectively) to report

having completed some postsecondary education.

?!!!!i Table 2.2

Percentages of adults with various

,.; ,,:.

,. levels of education, by age

Row percentages

Age WGT N oto12 High school/ Postn (/1 000) years GED secondary

16t024 3,606 26,715 19 (0.8) 44 (0.4) 37 (0.6)

25 to 59 17,736 116,496 18 (0.3) 31 (0.3) 51 (0.3)

60 to 69 2,260 19,990 38 (1 .4) 29 (1 .2) 33 (1 .0)

70 to 79 1,001 13,791 45 (1 .7) 28 (1 .4)

80 and older

27 (1 .5)

440 5,403 64 (2.2) 15 (2.2) 21 (2.1)

n = sample size WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

●

●

●

C h t 2 3 3
Comparing literacy proficiencies by level of education

Clearly, then, there are major variations in educational experience across the

age groups. This does not fully explain the performance differences observed,

however. Even when one controls for education, older persons still tend to

display more lilmited literacy skills than younger persons.

Differences in literacy proficiencies by age are most apparent at the

higher levels of education (table 2.3). While adults who completed some

postsecondary education tended to score in the Level 3 range regardless of

their age group, the average literacy proficiencies of 60- to 69-year-olds with

this level of education (280 to 298) are lower than those of their 25- to 59-yearold counterparts (309 to 315), The gap between the two groups is largest on the

document literacy scale, where the average score of adults age 60 to 69 is 29

points below that of younger adults; on the prose and quantitative scales, the

differences are 22 and 17 points, respectively. The average document score of

adults age 70 to 79 who had completed some postsecondary education is in the

Level 2 range.

The proficiency differences between younger an~ older adults are

somewhat smaller among those whose highest level of education was a high

school diploma or GED. Still, the average literacy proficiencies of high school

or GED graduates in the 60 to 69 age group are 11 to 24 points lower than

those of adults in the 25 to 59 age group. Again the largest gap between the

two age groups is found on the document literacy scale.

Among respondents with less than a high school education, the average

literacy proficiencies of 60-to 69-year-olds are comparable to those of 25-to

59-year-olds. On all three literacy scales, the average proficiencies of school

dropouts in both age groups lie within the Level 1 range.

Similarly, within the older adult population, differences in performance by

age remain even when one compares the literacy proficiencies of individuals

with the same level of education. On average, the oldest adults (age 80 and

older) still displayed more limited literacy skills than 70- to 79-Year-olds who. in

turn, displayed more limited skills than 60- to 69-year-olds.

For example, among older adults with between zero and 12 years of

schooling, the average prose score of individuals age 80 and older is 182, that of

70- to 79-year-olds is 194, and that of 60- to 69-year-olds is 211.

Among older adults whose highest level of education was a high school

diploma or GED, the average prose score of individuals age 80 and older (223)

is lower than that of 70- to 79-year-olds (246) and that of 60- to 69-year-olds

(262). The data for the oldest age group should be interpreted with caution due

the small sample size, however.

●

● ✝

34 . . . . . . Chapter 2
?

_ Table 2.3

RiI

/xLLz- A:Nl!- Average proficiencies of older adults with various

levels of education, by age

Average proficiencies

Age/

literacy scale WGT N oto12 High schooV Postn (/1 000) years GED secondary

16t024 3,606 26,715

Prose 233 ( 3.3) 274 ( 2.0) 311 ( 1.9)

Document 234 ( 3.6) 274 ( 2.1)

Quantitative

310 ( 1.7)

227 ( 3.5) 272 ( 2.3) 308 ( 2.0)

25 to 59 17,736 116,496

Prose 210 ( 1.8) 273 ( 1.1) 315 ( 0.8)

Document 206 ( 2.0) 269 ( 1.0)

Quantitative

309 ( 0.7)

206 ( 1.8) 274 ( 1.1) 315 ( 0.8)

60 to 69 2,260 19,990

Prose 211 ( 3.1) 262 ( 2.5) 293 ( 2.5)

Document 201 ( 2.7) 245 ( 2.6)

Quantitative

280 ( 2.5)

209 ( 3.9) 261 ( j?.9) 298 ( 3.1)

70 to 79 1,001 13,791

Prose 194 ( 3.3) ’246 ( 4.7) 277 ( 4.8)

Document 184 ( 3.2) 231 ( 4.3)

Quantitative

261 ( 3.2)

183 ( 3.9) 248 ( 5.1) 284 ( 4.2)

80 and older 440 5,403

Prose 182 ( 5.5) 223 ( 4.9)! 237 ( 4.7)!

Document 168 ( 5.3) 207 ( 6.0)! 221 ( 6.4)!

Quantitative 170 ( 7.3) 222 (1 0.4)! 236 ( 7.1)!

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95°A certainty.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

Thus, the differences in literacy proficiencies that are found between

older and younger adults and among various age groups within the older adult

population cannot be fully explained by differences in levels of educational

attainment.

.

●
-.

Analyzing the relationship between literacy and level of education

In examining these data, one question that arises is, how much of the

difference in performance is attributable to education and how much of it is

attributable to other factors? This question can be answered with partition

analyses, which are useful when two populations—in this case, two age

groups—differ in average performance and in the distribution of another

relevant confounding variable, such as education. Partition analyses make it

possible to isolate, or partition, two interpretable components that comprise

the proficiency difference between the groups.

The upper portion of table 2.4 presents the average literacy proficiencies

of and proficiency differences between adults age 25 to, 59 and those in each of

the older age groups. For example, the difference in average prose scores

between 25- to 59-year-olds and all adults age 60 and older is 44 points, and the

differences in average document and quantitative scores between the two

groups are 54 points and 46 points, respectively. The lower part of the table

indicates the extent to which these proficiency gaps are due to differences in

educational attainment and to factors other than education.

Of the 44-point difference in average prose proficiencies between 25-to

59-yem-olds and those age 60 and older, 26 points are attributable to the

unequal distribution of educational attainments between the two groups. Even

if the two groups had exactly the same distribution of educational attainments,

however, the average prose scores of individuals age 25 to 59 would be 23

points higher than those of adults age 60 and older. The difference in average

prose scores between older and younger adults that is attributable to the two

components (education and other factors ) less the original difference between

the two groups is 5, which is referred to as the “interaction.”

It is interesting to note that on the prose and quantitative literacy scales

the differences in average proficiencies between 25- to 59-year-olds and adults

age 60 and older are attributable about equally to differences in the

distribution of educational attainment and other factors. On the document

scale, however, the difference is attributable less to education than to other

factors.

When the average proficiencies of adults age 60 to 69 are compared with

those of adults age 25 to 59, the differences on the prose and quantitative

scales are explained more by educational attainment than by other factors, In

contrast, education and other factors account about equally for the difference

in average document scores between these two age groups.

.

●

36. ..,.. Chapter 2
..

-

Table 2.4

F%l

~~~~ Comparing average literacy proficiencies by age:

differences due to education and other factors

Variable/ Age group

literacy scale

25 to 60 and 60 to 70 to 80 and

59 older 69 79 older

Literacy Scale

Average proficiency

Prose 282.9 238.9 253.5 233.3 199.5

Document 278.0 224.5 239.9 218.0 184.0

Quantitative 282.5 236.0 253.3 229.3 189.4

Difference between Average proficiency difference

age 25 to 59 and

each older age group

Prose --- -44.0 -29.4 -49.6 -83.4

Document --- -53.5 -38.1 -60.0 -94.9

Quantitative --- -46.2 -29.2 -53.2 -93.1

.

Difference due to

unequal distribution of

educational attainment

Prose --- -25.8 -20.7 -26.8 -42.0

Document --- -25.0 -20.1 -25.9 -40.5

Quantitative --- -26.7 -21.4 -27.7 -43.7

Difference due to

other factors

Prose --- -23.1 -13.2 -27.5 -59.7

Document --- -33.8 -22.6 -40.0 -72.1

Quantitative --- -23.0 -12.2 -26.7 -65.0

Interaction

Prose --- 4.9 4.5 4.7 18.2

Document --- 5.4 4.6 6.0 18.6

Quantitative --- 3.3 4.5 1.2 15.6

Source U.S. Depatiment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy

Survey, 1992.

●

9

.

C h t 2 3 7
When the average literacy proficiencies of 7’0- to 79-year-olds are

compared with those of 25- to 59-year-olds. education and other factors

account for an equivalent amount of the differences on the prose and

quantitative scales. The differences in average document proficiency, on the

other hand, are attributable less to education than to other factors. On all three

literacy scales, the differences in average scores between 25-to 59-Year-olds

and those age 80 and older are explained less by education than by other

factors.

In summa~, differences in educational attainment explain more of the

performance gap between the young (age 25 to 59) and the “young old” (60 to

69) than do other factors. For the “oldest old” (those age 80 and older), the

opposite is true. In any case, older adults tend to display more limited literacy

proficiencies than younger adults with the same level of education.

Together these findings suggest that maturation effects--+r changes that

occur over the course of a person’s lifetime—have a negative impact on literacy

skills, on average, and that this impact is not compensated for by education

alone. In other words, differences in literacy skills across the older age groups

may relate to more generalized differences in pefform~nce. Psychological

studies of aging have found that the speed with which adults perform certain

types of cognitive and sensory tasks, and performance on various memory and

learning tasks, do tend to decline with age.zThese areas are beyond the scope

of this survey, however, since this was a cross-sectional study, not a longitudinal

one, and because this was an assessment of literacy and not of other skills. It is

also important to remember that there is tremendous variation within the

human population, so that any skill differences that are found among older

adults on average are by no means characteristic of all older persons.

Reasons for leaving school

National Adult Literacy Survey respondents who did not earn a high school

diploma were asked to indicate their primary reason for leaving school. As

discussed in the previous section, older adults were less likely than younger

adults to report that they had completed secondary school. The reasons for this

interruption in schooling vary across the age groups (table 2,5).

2 J E, Birren and K,W. Schme, eds. ( 197’7). Handbook cfthe Psychology ojAging. New York; D.B. Bromley

(1974). The Psychology of Human Aging, 2nd ed. Harrnondsworth; N. Charness, ed. (1985). Aging and

Human Pefornumce. New York; AT. \velford. (1958). Ageing and Human SkilZ. Oxford; cited in K]chard L.

Gregory, ed. (1987). The Oxford Companion to the Mind. Oxford.

●

38 . . . . . . Chapter 2
F

Table 2.5 Akl- Absl

J

D% Percentages of adults who stopped

school for various reasons, by age

Age Row percentages

WGT N Financial Went to Lost Academic Personal

n (/1 000) problems work Pregnancy interest problems problems

60 and older 1,237 14,433 24 (2.1) 40 (1.9) 1 (0.2) 9 (1.0) 2 (0.4) 25 (1.7)

16t059 3,467 25,528 16 (0.9) 23 (1 .2) 12 (0.6) 23 (1 .0) 4 (0.5) 22 (1 .2)

n = sample size, WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total

sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population values can be said to be

within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95 YO certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

Dropouts who were age 60 and older were more likely than younger

dropouts to report that they left school because of financial problems (24

percent compared with 16 percent) or because they had to work (40 percent

compared with 23 percent). On the other hand, adults under 60 were more

likely than older adults to report dropping out of school because of pregnancy

(12 percent compared with 1 percent) and lack of interest (23 percent

compared with 9 percent).

There are no significant differences in literacy proficiencies between older

and younger persons who dropped out of high school for financial reasons (table

2.6). Among those who left school to enter the work force, however, younger

adults have higher average literacy scores than do older adults. Similarly,

among those who lost interest in school, and those who left school for family or

personal problems, adults under 60 outperformed their older counterparts, on

average.

There appear to be no differences in performance within the older

population by reason for dropping out of school. In the younger population,

however, those who left school for financial reasons demonstrated the lowest

average literacy proficiencies.

●

●

●

Chapter 2......3 9
_ Table 2.6

FJ(l

2di\- 4: Average literacy proficiencies of adults who

stopped school for various reasons, by age

Age/ Average proficiencies

literacy scale WGT N Financial Went to Lost Academic Personal

n (/1000) problem s work Pregnancy interest problems problems

60 and older 1,237 14,433

Prose 195 (6.0) 206 (4.6) --- 207 (6.5) --- 199 (4.8)

Document 189 (4.7) 194 (4.3) --- 199 (6.4) ---

Quantitative

186 (5.7)

188 (8.4) 202 (4.8) --- 209 (8.6) -– 190 (7.1)

16t059 3,467 25,528

Prose 189 (5.2) 226 (3.0) 240 (3.5) 238 (3.2) 227 (6.7) 224 (3.8)

Document 181 (4.6) 223 (2.7) 240 (3.3) 237 (3.2)

Quantitative

224 (6.5) 222 (4.1)

183 (4.5) 229 (3.1) 226 (3.3) 235 (3.5) 218 (6.4) 220 (4.3)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total

sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population values can be said to be

within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

--- Sample size is too small to provide a reliable proficiency estimate.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

F?ace/ethnicity

In 1992, according to the National Adult Literacy Survey data, 86 percent of

the nation’s older adults were White, 9 percent were Black, and 5 percent were

Hispanic (table 2.7). In contrast, 77 percent of adults under age 60 were White,

12 percent were Black, and 11 percent were Hispanic. The racial /ethnic

groups are defined in Appendix D.

Beginning in the early part of the next century, the older minority

population is expected to grow more rapidly than the older White population,

resulting in more diversity among adults age 60 and older. These changes will

occur because of higher fertility rates among nonwhite groups than among

White adults. Still, the percentage of older adults who are White will remain

higher than the percentages who are Black or Hispanic.3

3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (1991). Aging America. Washington, D. C.: Department of

Health and Human Services, p. 14,

40 . . . . . . Chapter 2
Within the older adult population, White adults demonstrated consistently

higher average literacy proficiencies than their Black or Hispanic peers (table

2.8). The Hispanic data must be interpreted with caution, however, due to the

small sample sizes. On all three literacy scales, the average proficiencies of

White older adults are in the Level 2 range, while those of Black older adults

are in the Level 1 range. The performance gap between White and Black older

adults on the quantitative scale is especially large. Although the small sample

sizes prevent making detailed inferences, the low average scores of Hispanic

older adults suggest that they may be able to perform only the most basic Level

1 tasks successfully,

This pattern of performance differences among older adults in various

racial/ethnic groups is consistent with the pattern of results for the under-60

population, where White adults also outperformed Black and Hispanic adults.

.

I!!!!!n Table 2.7

Percentages of adults in various -

f$q$-

< .: racial/ethnic groups, by age

Age Row percentages

WGT N

n (/1 000) White Black Hispanic

60 and older 3,655 38,462 86 (0.8) 9 (0.5) 5 (0.5)

16t059 21,726 146,180 77 (0.3) 12 (0.1) 11 (0.3)

60 to 69 2,231 19,643 84 (1 .0) 9 (0.6) 7 (0.8)

70 to 79 989 13,491 87 (1 .0) 9 (1.0) 4 (0.6)

80 and older 435 5,327 90 (1 .3) 7 (1 .0) 4 (0.9)

I

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parenthaaes are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

Source U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

●

●

●

Ch 2 4l
.=

_ Table 2.8

Fa

dllh\K- 4:KS Average literacy proficiencies of adults in VariOUS

racial/ethnic groups, by age

Age/ Average proficiencies

literacy scale WGT N

II (/1 000) White Black Hispanic

60 and older 3,655 38,462

Prose 248 (1 .5) 195 ( 3.8) 179 ( 6.4)!

Document 233 (1 .5) 182 ( 2.8) 164 ( 6.0)!

Quantitative 248 (2.0) 175 ( 4.7) 163 ( 7.7)!

16t059 21,726 146,180 T

Prose 298 (0.8) 245 ( 1.4) 219 ( 2.2)

Document 294 (0.8) 239 ( 1.3) 219 ( 2.5)

Quantitative 298 (0.8) 234 ( 1.4) 218 ( 2.5)

60 to 69 2,231 19,643

Prose 263 (1 .8) 211 ( 4.3)! 186 ( 6.8)!

Document 250 (1 .7) 197 ( 4.0)! 176 ( 7.0)!

Quantitative 265 (2.0) 192 - ( 5.5)! 182 ( 9.7)!

70 to 79 989 13,491

Prose 242 (3.0) 182 ( 7.0)! 164 (12.9)!

Document 227 (2.6) 170 ( 5.2)! 145 (1 1.5)!

Quantitative 241 (3.0) 162 ( 8.8)! 140 (14.6)!

80 and older 435 5,327

Prose 207 (3.4) 154 ( 8.1)! ---

Document 192 (3.9) 143 ( 6.7)! ---

Quantitative 202 (5.4) 131 (10.0)! ---

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95~o certainty.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

--- Sample size is too small to provide a reliable proficiency estimate.

Source: U.S. Depatiment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

Racial/ethnic differences in self-reported literacy proficiencies

Significant differences in self-assessed literacy skills are apparent among older

adults in various raciaVethnic groups. Among those age 60 and older, White

individuals (71 percent) were more likely than Black (51 percent) or Hispanic

(29 percent) individuals to say they read very well. Similar patterns are evident

in the under-60 population, although the differences between the groups are

smaller (table 2.9 and tables B2. 1 and B2.2 in Appendix B).

a

.0

42 . . . . . . Chapter 2
Among those who claim to read very well, the average literacy

proficiencies of White older adults fhll in the Level 2 range, while those of

Black older adults are in the Level 1 range (table 2. 10). The average scores of

Hispanic older adults also appear to be in the Level 2 range, but the small

sample precludes confidence in the data for this group.

White and Black older adults who reported reading very well demonstrate

lower average proficiencies than their counterparts in the under-60 population

who reported reading well. For example, on the prose scale, the average score of

White older adults who said they read very well is .259, compared with 275 for

White adults under 60 who said they read well. The average prose score of

Black older adults who reported reading very well is 213, compared with 230

for younger Black adults who reported reading well.

Similar trends occur with respect to self-assessed writing abilities (tiable

B2.1 in Appendix B). Almost two-thirds of White adults age 60 and older

reported that they write very well (64 percent), compared with 45 percent of

Black older adults and 24 percent of Hispanic older adults. Again, the average

proficiencies of White older adults are in the Level 2 range, while those of

Black older adults are in the Level 1 range. The average scores of Hispanic

older adults who said they write well appear to be within the Level 2 range, but

again these data should be interpreted with caution.

F

.- Table 2.9

‘~~~= Percentages of adults by self-reported reading proficiency

J

in English, by race/ethnicity and by age

Agel Row percentages

race/ethnicity WGT N Very Not welV

n (/1 000) well Well not at all

60 and older

White 2,754 33,001 71 (1 .2) 24 (1 .2) 5 (0.6)

Black 625 3,347 51 (2.6) 32 (2.8)

Hispanic

18 (1 .4)

263 1,997 29 (3.4) 25 (3.3) 46 (3.1)

16t059

White 14,515 111,734 77 (0.8) 21 (0.8) 3 (0.2)

Black 4,322 17,778 67 (1 .0) 27 (0.9) 6 (0.5)

Hispanic 2,856 16,447 46 (1 .7) 22 (1.1) 32 (1 .5)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total samde sizes, due to missina data. Numbers in Parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be s~d to be” within 2 stand;rd errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

Source: U.S. Depatiment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

*

,

Chapter 2......4 3
.’..

The pattern of performance results with respect to self-assessed

arithmetic skills is similar to that for self-assessed reading and writing skills

(table B2.2 in Appendix B). More than half the White older adults (55 percent)

said they do arithmetic tasks very well, compared with 31 percent of Black and

23 percent of Hispanic older adults. The average scores of these groups vary

accordingly, with White older adults performing better, on average, than Black

older adults with the same level of self-reported ability.

~ Table 2.1o

Fa

AbN\-

‘Am= Average literacy proficiencies of adults by self-reported

reading proficiency in English, by race/ethnicity and by age

Age/ Average proficiencies

race/ethnicity/ WGT N Very

literacy scale

Not welV

n (/1 000) well Well not at all

60 and older .-

White 2,754 33,001

Prose 259 ( 1.7) 231 (3.0) 152 (5.4)!

Document 244 ( 1.8) 219 (3.4) 158 (7.1)!

Quantitative 259 ( 2.2) 234 (4.0) 149 (7.3)!

Black 625 3,347

Prose 213 ( 4.5) 197 (5.0)! 136 (7.0)!

Document 197 ( 4.0) 189 (4.3)! 124 (6.3)!

Quantitative 192 ( 5.5) 185 (6.5)! 106 (9.5)!

Hispanic 263 1,997

Prose 244 ( 9.0)! 190 (8.6)! 132 (8.9)!

Document 228 ( 9.3)! 183 (7.1)! 113 (6.9)!

Quantitative 241 (12.9)! 203 (7.4)! 92 (9.3)!

16t059

White 14,515 111,734

Prose 308 ( 0.7) 275 (1 .5) 193 (6.5)!

Document 303 ( 0.7) 273 (1 .6) 197 (6.6)!

Quantitative 307 ( 0.7) 278 (1 .8) 199 (6.0)!

Black 4,322 17,778

Prose 259 ( 1.5) 230 (2.2) 148 (4.2)!

Document 252 ( 1.3) 225 (2.6) 151 (4.6)!

Quantitative 247 ( 1.6) 221 (2.4) 142 (5.7)!

Hispanic 2,856 16,447

Prose 275 ( 2.3) 227 (2.8) 135 (2.5)

Document 273 ( 2.3) 229 (3.1) 135 (2.8)

Quantitative 270 ( 2.6) 230 (2.8) 135 (2.9)

n = sample sizq WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add

up to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true

population values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

Source U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

●

✎

✎

44 2
Race/ethnicity and level of education

Older adults in other raciaJ/ethnic groups (66 percent) were more likely than

White older adults (40 percent) to report that they had not completed high

school or earned a GED (table 2.11). White adults age 60 and older were more

likely than their peers in other racial/ethnic groups to say that they had earned

a high school diploma or GED (29 versus 16 percent, respectively) or

completed some postsecondary education (31 versus 17 percent, respectively).

Both groups of older adults possess less education than adults under 60,

on average. For example, 40 percent of White older adults reported not having

earned a high school diploma, compared with 17 percent of the younger White

population. Two-thirds of the older adults in other racitiethnic groups

reported having not completed high school, compared with slightly more than

one-third of the under-60 population.

Even when one compares those with the same level of education, White

adults age 60 and older tended to outperform their peers in other racial/ethnic

groups (table 2.12). Regardless of their race/ethnicity, older adults with less

I!!!!!s Table 2.11

Percentages of adults with various levels

of education, by racelethnicity and by age

Age/ Row percentages

race/ethnicity WGT N oto12 High schooV Poatn (/1 000) years GED stxondafy

60 and older

White 2,756 33,009 40 (0.9) 29 (0.8) 31 (0.8)

Other 904 6,177 66 (2.2) 16 (1 .6) 17 (1 .6)

16t059

White 14,525 111,781 17 (0.4) 33 (0.4) 50 (0.5)

Other 7,730 39,068 38 (0.7) 29 (0.8) 33 (0.8)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add

up to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true

population values can be said to be within 2 standard errora of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

Source U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

-e

Chapter 2......4 5
than a high school diploma performed, on average, in the Level 1 range on all

three literacy scales. Although the data must be interpreted with caution, the

average proficiencies of older White adults who earned a high school diploma

or GED and those who completed some postsecondw-y education appear to be

higher than those of their peers in other racial/ethnic groups with comparable

levels of education. One plausible explanation for these differences is that the

quality of education vwied for these populations. Differences in socioeconomic

status are also likely to be a factor.

5

_ Table 2.I2

F“”

A/ALkLw

~:~~ Average literacy proficiencies of adults with various levels

of education, by racelethnicity and by age

Age/ Average proficiencies

racelethnicityf WGT N oto12 High s~hool/- PostIiteracy scale n (/1 000) years GED secondary

60 and older

White 2,756 33,009

Prose 211 (2.4) 257 (2.2) 286 (2.5)

Document 200 (2.4) 240 (2.1) 271 (2.0)

Quantitative 207 (3.4) 257 (2.2) 292 (2.5)

Other 904 6,177

Prose 163 (4.8) 219 (9.5)! 245 (7.1)!

Document 154 (4.1) 209 (7.2)! 234 (8.6)!

Quantitative 144 (6.4) 219 (8.5)! 241 (8.5)!

16t059

White 14,525 111,781

Prose 254 (1 .8) 283 (1.1) 323 (0.9)

Document 253 (2.2) 280 (1 .0) 318 (0.8)

Quantitative 253 (1 .8) 285 (1.1) 323 (0.9)

Other 7,730 39,068

Prose 195 (1.8) 243 (1 .9) 278 (1 .7)

Document 193 (2.1) 240 (2.2) 274 (1 .5)

Quantitative 187 (1 .9) 238 (2.1) 276 (1 .6)

n = sample size WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations

may not add up to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are

standard errors. The true population values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the

sample estimates with 95°/0 certainty.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult

Literacy Survey, 1992.

46 . . . . . . Chapter 2
There are small but statistically significant differences between older and

younger adults with respect to the language usually spoken (table .2.13). Eightysix percent of adults age 16 to 59 reported that they speak English most of the

time, while 12 percent said they speak both English and another language and

just 2 percent said they speak another language only. Older adults were slightly

less likely to report that they speak only English (82 percent) and more likely to

report that they usually speak English and some other language (16 percent).

Among those who speak English only, adults under 60 demonstrate

consistently higher literacy proficiencies, on average, than adults age 60 and

older (table 2.14). A similar pattern is found among adults who speak English

and another language. Regardless of their age, adults’ who speak only a

language other than English have substantially lower literacy proficiencies, on

average, than adults who speak English only, or English and another language.

A few differences across the age groups are also found when language

learned before starting school is considered (table 2. 15). Adults age 60 to 69

and those age 80 and older were slightly less likely than younger adults to

report that they learned only English before stiirting%chool. Further, the three

older adult populations were slightly more likely than younger adults to say that

they learned both English and another language.

F’ ~J,&=_ Table 2.13

A:wl

4

Percentages of adults who usually speak English

or other languages, by age

Age Row percentages

WGT N English English Other

n (/1 000) only and other only

16t059 22,286 151 ,3~4 86 (0.4) 12 (0.4) 2 (0.2)

60 and older 3,690 39,208 82 (0.9) 16 (0.8) 2 (0.3)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add

up to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true

population values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

●

●

●

Chapter 2......4 7
_ Table 2.14

m

Average literacy proficiencies of adults who usually speak

English or other languages, by age

Age/ Average proficiencies

literacy scale WGT N English English Other

n (/1 000) only and other only

16t059 22,286 151,314

Prose 291 ( 0.7) 244 ( 2.2) 131 ( 2.7)!

Document 287 ( 0.7) 246 ( 2.4) 126 ( 3.3)!

Quantitative 289 ( 0.7) 250 ( 2.4) 125 ( 2.9)!

60 and older 3,690 39,208

Prose 244 ( 1.6) 215( 4.8) 144 (1 0.0)!

Document 231 ( 1.5) 207 ( 3.2) 115(11.7)!

Quantitative 244 ( 1.9) 213 ( 5.5) 98(1 6.9)!

n = sample size WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add

up to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true

population values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determinql accurately.

.

Source U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

The average literacy proficiencies of older adults who learned both

English and another language as young children were similar to those of adults

who learned only English (table 2.16). This is not true, however, for adults

below the age of 60. In this age group, those who learned only English have

higher average literacy scores than those who learned English and another

language. Adults age 16 to 59 who learned only English as children performed,

on average, in the middle of Level 3 on all three scales; the average scores for

the other groups ranged from Level 1 to the low end of Level 3. Among older

respondents, even those who learned only English as children had average

scores in the Level 2 range.

In both the younger and older age groups, adults who learned only a nonEnglish language before starting school scored, on average, in Level l—below

their peers who learned English only. Adults age 60 and older who learned only

.

9*

48 . . . . . . Chapter 2
.-

= Table 2.15

Rlll

A:L’JI Percentages of adults who learned English

or other languages before starting school, by age

Age Row percentages

I

WGT N English English Other

n (/1 ,000) onlv and other onlv

16t059 22,329 151,615 86 (0.4) 4 (0.3) 10 (0.3)

60 to 69 2,264 20,161 81 (1 .2) 7 (0.9) 12 (0.7)

70 to 79 1,000 13,764 83(1 .3) 8(1.1) 9 (0.9)

80 and older 440 5,413 79 (2.2) 9(1 .5) 11 (1 .8)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add

up to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true

population values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

.Z

r

.- Table 2.16 /m\SSSS

‘:== Average literacy proficiencies of adults who learned

J

English or other languages before starting school, by age

Age/

literacy scale

16t059

Prose

Document

Quantitative

60 and older

Prose

Document

Quantitative

Average proficiencies

WGT N English English Other

n (/1 ,000) only and other only

22,329 151,615

291 (0.7) 278 (2.7) 203 (2.4)

287 (0.7) 275 (2.8) 206 (2.7)

289 (0.7) 276 (3.26) 210 (2.6)

3,704 39,338

244 (1 .6) 235 (7.6) 188 (5.2)

231 (1 .5) 221 (5.7) 180 (4.9)

244 (1 .9) 229 (8.5) 182 (6.4)

n = sample sizq WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for SUbDODLJlatiOflS mav not add

up to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are stand~d” errors. The ke

population values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

Source U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

●

Chapter 2......4 9
a non-English language have lower average literacv proficiencies than their

younger counterparts.

. . . . . . . . . . .

4!, . . J: .“

Since literacy tests require visual ability, and since the incidence of visual

impairment increases with age, it is possible that visual impairments might

explain some of the differences in literacy proficiencies between older and

younger adults. Seventeen percent of the older adult population reported

having a visual impairment (as defined in Appendix D), compared with only 5

percent of the under-60 population (table 2.17). Within the older adult

population, the incidence of visual impairment increases with age: 11 percent

of 60- to 69-year-olds, 18 percent of 70- to 79-year-olds, and 36 percent of

adults 80 and older reported having a visual impairment.

Regardless of their age, visually impaired persons have lower average

scores on each of the literacy scales than their peers without such impairments

(table 2.18). The performance gap between those who reported an impairment

and those who did not is smaller for the 80 and older Copulation than for the

two younger cohorts, For example, the difference in average quantitative

F

Table 2.17 AAiL- I:MS~ percentages of adults with and without

J

visual impairments, by age

Age Row percentages

WGT N Visual No visual

n (/1 000) impairment impairment

60 and older 3,713 39,416 17 (0.7) 83 (0.7)

16t059 22,348 151,644 5 (0.2) 95 (0.2)

60 to 69 2,267 20,171 11 (0.8) 89 (0.8)

70 to 79 1,005 13,836 18 (1 .3) 82 (1 .3)

80 and older 441 5,409 36 (2.3) 64 (2.3)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add

up to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true

population values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

50 . . . . . . Chapter 2
*>

H Table 2.18

FIJI

AiAN~ f:l- Average literacy proficiencies of adults

with and without visual impairments, by age

Age/ Average proficiencies

literacy scale WGT N Visual No visual

n (/1 000) impairment impairment

60 and older 3,713 39,416

Prose 197 (3.3) 246 (1 .6)

Document 188 (3.6) 232 (1 .5)

Quantitative 184 (4.0) 246 (2.1)

16t059 22,348 151,644

Prose 235 (3.5) 284 (0.6)

Document 233 (3.1) 280 (0.6)

Quantitative 232 (3.2) 283 (0.6)

60 to 69 2,267 20,171

Prose 212 (4.3) 257 (1 .9)

Document 202 (4.7)

Quantitative

244 (1 .8)

199 (5.3) 259 (2.2)

70 to 79 1,005 13,836

Prose 194 (5.8) - 239 (3.1)

Document 186 (5,7) 225 (2.8)

Quantitative 185 (8.3) 238 (3.3)

80 and older 441 5,409

Prose 183 (6.1) 209 (4.7)

Document 172 (6.3) 194 (4.3)

Quantitative 167 (8.4) 205 (5.9)

n = sample size WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add

up to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true

population values can be said to be within 2 standard enors of the sample estimates with %vo certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

proficiencies between adults who have and those who do not have a visual

impairment is about 38 points for those 80 and older, compared with 53 and 60

points, respectively, for adults age 70 to 79 and those age 60 to 69.

The presence of a visual impairment seems to have an equalizing effect on

proficiency as age increases. Whereas the average literacy scores of visually

impaired 60- to 69-year-olds are higher than those of their older counterparts,

visually impaired adults age 70 to 79 and those age 80 and older performed

comparably. Among adults without visual impairments, however, those age 60

to 69 have higher average prose, document, and quantitative scores than those

age 70 to 79 who, in turn, have higher average scores than those age 80 and

older.

●

●

●

Chapter 2......5 1
-.

Male and female older adults demonstrate comparable prose proficiencies, on

average (table 2.19). Females were more likely than males to perform in Level

.2 on this scale, \vhile males were slightly more likely to attain Levels 4 and 5. In

the areas of document and quantitative literacy, older adult males tended to

outperform their female peers. On the document scale, the average score for

males is 229, compared with 221 for females. Further, a larger percentage of

males than females performed in Level 4 on this scale. In the area of

quantitative literacy, the average proficiency of older males is 247, compared

with 227 for females. Females were more likely than males to perform in

Levels 1 and 2 on this scale.

When the proficiencies of older males and females are compared by age,

the pattern varies across the literacy scales (table 2.20). Males age 60 to 69

tended to have higher document and quantitative scores than females of the

same age, but males age 70 to 79 outperformed their female peers only on the

.

F

~,,,&=_ Table 2.19

‘k-- Percentages of older adults in each literacy level

J

and average literacy proficiencies, by sex

Literacy scale/ Row percentages

sex

WGT N Average

n (/1 ,000) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Proficiency

Prose

Male 1,396 17,517 40 (2.1) 29 (2.3) 21 (1.7) 8 (1 .3) 2 (0.4) 238 (2.5)

Female 2,313 21,885 38 (1 .2) 35 (1 .4) 22 (1 .3) 5 (0.7) 0’(0. 1 ) 237 (1 .4)

Document

Male 1,396 17,517 46 (1.8) 31 (2.2) 18 (1 .5) 5 (1 .0) 1 (0.2) 229 (2.3)

Female 2,313 21,885 49 (1.5) 35 (1.5) 14 (1 .4) 2 (0.6) 0’(0.1) 221 (1.8)

Quantitative

Male 1,396 17,517 36 (1.7) 24 (1.7) 24 (1.9) 12 (1.1) 4 (0.6)

Female

247 (3.1)

2,313 21,885 44 (1.5) 29 (1.5) 20 (1.1) 6 (0.9) 1 (0.3) 227 (2.2)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

+ Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to O.

Source U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

●

52 . . . . . . Chapter 2
I?!4 Table 2.20

Average literacy proficiencies of

males and females, by age

Agel Average proficiencies

literacy scale WGT N

n (/1 000) Male Female

60 and older 3,709 39,403

Prose 238 (5.2) 237 (1 .4)

Document 229 (2.3) 221 (1.8)

Quantitative 247 (3.1) 227 (2.2)

16t059 22,340 151,596

Prose 279 (0.8) 284 (0.9)

Document 278 (0.9) 278 (0.8)

Quantitative 284 (0.9) 277 (0.9)

60 to 69 2,264 20.154

Prose 253 (2.7) 252 (2.0)

Document 243 (2.7) 236 (2.1)

Quantitative 261 (3.6) 245 (2.6)

70 to 79 1,004 13,829

Prose 230 (4.7) 232 (3.2)

Document 223 (3.8) 215 (3.3)

Quantitative 241 (4.7) 219 (3.8)

60 and older 441 5,419

Prose 195 (6.5) 203 (4.3)

Document 183 (5.9) 187 (4.6)

Quantitative 198 (9.3) 188 (4.9)

. ,,

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes tor suopopulatlons may noI aaa

up to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true

population values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95°A certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center far Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

quantitative scale. In the 80 and older age group, the differences in average

literacy proficiencies between men and women disappear.

Factors such as labor force participation may contribute to the differences

in literacy proficiencies between older men and women. Labor statistics show

that most of today’s older women have not been in the work force, and those

who have worked typi&lly held clerical jobs. Very few had opportunities to

obtain professional or managerial positions which (as described later in the

report) may enable individuals to strengthen their literacy.

Across the literacy scales, males and females age 60 and older had lower

average proficiencies than younger males and females. For both sexes, the

difference in average literacy scores between the 60 and older and under-60

populations is greatest on the document scale.

●

●

✌

Chapte r 2......5 3
>

The average prose and quantitative proficiencies of >ounger males are 37

and 41 points higher, respectively, than those of older males. @ the document

scale, the proficiency difference between the two age groups is 49 points.

Younger women outperformed older women by 47 points on the prose scale,

57 points on the document scale, and 50 points on the quantitative scale.

Sex differences in self-reported literacy proficiencies

Within the older population, a few significant differences are found between

males and females with regard to their self-assessed literacy skills (table 2.21

and tables B2.3 and B2.4 in Appendix B). First, females age 60 and older were

slightly more likely than their male peers to report that they read (69 and 63

percent, respectively) and write (62 and 56, respectively) very well. In contrast,

older females were slightly less likely than males to describe themselves as

doing arithmetic very well (46 and 56 percent, respectively). Similar patterns

are evident in the under-60 population,

When demonstrated literacy proficiencies are compared with perceived

abilities, interesting patterns appear (table 2.22). First, males who reported that

they do various literacy activities very well outpe~form~d females who reported

the same level of ability. For example, the average prose scores of males who

F

Table 2.21

+

4

Percentages of adults by self-reported reading proficiency

in English, by sex and by age

Age/ Row percentages

sex WGT N Very Not well/

n (/1 000) well Well not at all

60 and older

Male 1,392 17,470 63 (1 .6) 27 (1.3) 10 (1.0)

Female 2,304 21,816 69 (1.1) 24 (1 .2) 7 (0.8)

16t059

Male 10,359 74,504 67 (0.9) 25 (0.8)

Female

8 (0.4)

11,948 76,872 76 (0.7) 18 (0.6) 5 (0.3)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errom of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

Source U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

*

a=

54 . . . . . . Chapter 2
=

~ Table 2.22

FJ

‘:.= Average literacy proficiencies of adults by self-reported

reading proficiency in English, by sex and by age

Age/ Average proficiencies

sex/ WGT N Very

literacy scale

Not well/

n (/1 000) well Well not at all

60 and older

Male 1,392 17,470

Prose 259 (2.4) 227 (3.8) 127 (7.2)!

Document 248 (2.3)

Quantitative

219 (4.2) 136 (4.2)!

269 (2.8) 241 (5.1) 123 (8.0)!

Female 2,304 21,816

Prose 252 (1 .8) 223 (3.6) 146 (5.7)!

Document 235 (2.3) 208 (3.3) 137 (7.3)!

Quantitative 243 (2.6) 215 (5.1) 118 (7.5)!

16t059

Male 10,359 74,504

Prose 299 (0.8) 264 (1 .5) 158 (3.0)

Document 297 (0.9) 264 (1 .7) 162 (3.2)

Quantitative 302 (1 .0) 270 (1 .7) 164 (3.2)

Female 11,948 76,872 .<

Prose 299 (0.9) 258 (1 .6) 149 (4.2)

Document 293 (0.8) 253 (1 .5) 149 (4.1)

Quantitative 293 (0.8) 253 (1 .7) 146 (4.3)

n = samde size WGT N = Domlation . size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add

up to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true

population values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with %~o certainty.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy SLJWeY,

1992.

reported reading and writing very well are 259 and 264, respectively, compared

with 252 and 253, respectively, for females. Similarly, the average quantitative

proficiency of males who reported doing arithmetic very well is 273, compared

with 247 for females.

When males and females who reported doing these activities well (as

opposed to very well) are compared, however, the pattern changes. For example,

the average prose scores of males and females who said they read well are

similar, but on the document scale, males tended to outperform females. When

one compares the demonstrated literacy skills of males and females who

reported writing well, both their prose and document proficiencies are about

the same. Among those who said they did arithmetic well, males and females

performed comparably on the quantitative and document scales as well as on

the prose scale.

Chapter 2......5 5
-.

. .

.=; . .-,

“.. .=..

Between 1980 and 1990, the population of older adults grew by :34 percent in

the West and by 26 percent in the South, compared with increases of 1.5 to 16

percent in the Northeast and Midwest. These trends are expected to continue

into the early yew-s of the next century.’ Accordingly, the South and West may

face increasing pressure to address the literacy needs of the older adult

population.

Regional differences in average literacy scores are found on all three

scales (table 2.23). Older adults in the Midwest had lower average proficiencies

than their counterparts in the West and South on all three literacy scales, and

their average prose proficiencies were lower than those of older adults in the

Northeast. On the other hand, older adults in the West had higher average

document and quantitative scores than those in the Northeast. These findings

are in contrast to the results for the under-60 population, where adults in the

m Table 2.23

pa

‘:.= Average literacy proficiencies of adults,

by region and by age

Age/ Average proficiencies

region WGT N

n (/1 000) Prose Document Quantitative

60 and older

Northeast 817 9,243 239 (2.1) 222 (2.4) 228 (4.0)

South 1,034 10,546 242 (3.2) 229 (2.9) 244 (4.0)

Midwest 1,220 12,408 226 (3.6) 214 (3.1) 225 (3.9)

West 643 7,238 250 (4.4) 238 (3.0) 253 (3.9)

16t059

Northeast 4,608 30,592 279 (1.3) 277 (1 .3) 279 (1.1)

South 6,460 34,772 291 (1 .3) 287 (1 .3) 290 (1 .7)

Midwest 6,666 53,446 277 (1 .7) 273 (1 .7) 275 (1 .8)

West 4,643 33,045 282 (1 .6) 278 (1 .7) 281 (1 .9)

n = sample size WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add

UD to the total sample sizes, due to missina data. Numbers in Parentheses are standard errors. The true

&pulation values can be said to be within > standard errors of” the sample estimates with %%o certainty.

Source U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

4 Cynthia M. Taeuber. (1992). Sbdy-Fice lb in America. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Commerce,

Bureau of the Census. pp. 5.1-5.3.

●

9°

56 . . . . . . Chapter 2
South outperformed adults from the other three regions on all three literacy

scales. Adults under 60 who reside in the Northeast, Midwest, and West had

comparable average proficiencies.

Can the lower average literacy proficiencies of older adults in the Midwest

be explained, at least in part, by a relatively high proportion of very old persons

in that region? In fact, 1990 Census data indicate that the five states with the

highest percentages of adults age 85 and older are Iowa, South Dakota,

Nebraska, North Dakota, and Kansas—all of which are in the Midwest.5

Summary

For the older population as a whole, average literacy proficiencies increase as

level of education increases. Older persons who had completed some

postsecondary education outperformed those whose highest level of education

was a high school diploma or GED, who outperformed those who left school

before that point.

Older adults generally reported lower levels of education than younger

adults. They were less likely to say they had ccimplefed any postsecondary

education and more likely to say they had not received a high school diploma or

GED.

When level of education is held constant, the performance gap between

younger and older adults is reduced, but younger adults still outperformed older

adults on all three literacy scales. This finding is confirmed by partition

analyses, which show that age differences in average prose and quantitative

scores are attributable about equally to differences in educational attainment

and to other factors, while age differences in average document scores are due

less to education than to other factors.

Among those who did not complete high school (but may have earned a

GED), older individuals were more likely than their younger counterparts to

report that they left school because of financial problems or employment.

Younger adults, on the other hand, were more likely to drop out of school

because of pregnancy or lack of interest.

White older adults demonstrated stronger average literacy proficiencies

than their peers in other racial/ethnic groups, and they were also likely to have

had more education. When level of education is held constant, White older

adults tended to outperform those in other racial/ethnic groups.

s Cynthia M. Taeuber. (1992). Sixty -Fioe Plus in America. Washington, D, C,: U.S. Department of Commerce,

Bureau of the Census. p. 5.3.

●

●

●
Most older adults reported that they usually speak English now (82

percent) and that they learned only English before starting school (’79 to 83

percent). Adults age 60 and older who typically speak only English have higher

average literacy proficiencies than those who usuallv speak some other

language. On the other hand, the average proficiencies of older adults who

learned English and another language before school are about the same as

those of individuals who learned only English.

Older adults were more likely than adults under 60 to report having a

visual impairment, and within the older population, the incidence of visual

impairment increases with age. Regardless of the age group, visually impaired

adults displayed more limited literacy skills, on average, than their peers

without such impairments.

Although the average prose proficiencies of males and females age 60 and

older are equivalent, older males tended to outscore their female peers on the

document and quantitative literacy scales. Older adults in the Midwest tended

to have lower literacy proficiencies than those residing in other regions of the

country.

.

58 2
CHAPTER 3

Employment,

as They Relate

Ciuic Participation, and Economic Status

to Literacy in the Older Adult Population

National Adult Literacy Survey respondents were asked to provide

information about their labor force participation, civic involvement, and annual

household income. Using these data, this chapter constructs a detailed picture

of the employment, civic, and economic status of the nation’s older adults, and

explores connections between these aspects of life and individuals’ literacy. The

results indicate that older adults who are active in the labor force, those who

volunteer and vote, and those with higher incomes tend to display stronger

literacy skills than their peers.

Retirement and Labor Force Participation

Nearly one-quarter (23 percent) of adults age 60 and older reported that they

were employed either full- or part-time the week before the survey, 2 percent

were unemployed, laid off, or looking for work; 43 percent were out of the

labor force (in school or keeping house); 32 percent were retired; and 3

percent were retired and doing volunteer work (table 3.1). *

In contrast, roughly three-quarters of adults under 60 (74 percent) were

employed, while 17 percent were out of the labor force, 9 percent were

unemployed, and only O to 1 percent were retired, or retired and volunteering.

Although adults age 60 and older were less likely than younger persons to be

unemployed, unemployment creates serious problems for older adults.

Unemployed older individuals tend to stay out of the work force longer than

their younger counterparts. As a result, many become discouraged in looking

for work and drop out of the labor market.’

The percentage of adults who were employed decreases with age: 70

percent of adults age 55 to 59,47 percent of those age 60 to 64,24 percent of

those age 65 to 69, and 10 percent of those age 70 and older reported being

1 Typically, retired individuals are classified as being out of tbe labor force. In this report, however, adults

who reported that they were “retired the week before the survey are labeled as such, and adults who

reported that they were keeping house or in school are classified as “out of the labor force.” The “retired

category includes both the retired who volunteer and those who do not.

2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1991). Aging Arrw-ica. Washington, DC: Department of

Health and Human Services. pp. 91 and 104.

.

●

●

Chapte r 3 5 9
_ Table 3.1

Rll

/iAi\- ~:wl Percentages of adults in various

Iaborforce groups, by age

Row percentages

Age

WGT N Un- Out of All Retired

n (/1 000) Employed employed labor force retired volunte~

60 and older 3,631 38,746 23 (0.7) 2 (0.3) 43 (1 .4) 32 (1 .4) 3 (0.4)

16 to 59 20,910 148,571 74 (0.4) 9 (0.3) 17 (0.4) 1 (0.1) 0’(0.0)

55 to 59 1,369 9,437 70 (1 .7) 5 (0.7) 20 (1 .5) 5 (0.8) 1 (0.2)

60 to 64 1,456 9,417 47 (1 .8) 3 (0.5) 31 {1.7) 19 (1 .7) 2 (0.6)

65 to 69 746 10,331 24 (2.1) 2 (0.6) 42 (2.7) 32 (2.3) 3 (0.7)

70 and older 1,429 18,999 10 (0.9) 1 (0.4) 50 (1 .7) 39 (1 .9) 4 (0.7)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for sub~ooulations may not add UD to the

total sample sizes, due to rnis~lng data. Numbers in parentheses are” standard errors. We true population values can be

said to be within 2 standard errors. of the sample estimates with %5’%0 certainty.

+ Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to O.

Source U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

employed the week before the survey. The percentage of individuals who were

unemployed also declines slightly across the age groups, from 5 percent of

adults age 55 to 59 to 1 percent of adults age 70 and older. In contrast, the

percentage of adults who were out of the labor force increases with age, from

20 percent of 55- to 59-year-olds, to 31 percent of 60- to &l-year-oIds, 42

percent of 65-to 69-year-olds, and 50 percent of adults age 70 and older. Thus,

there is a sizable pool of older adults who have been unable to find work and

who do not consider themselves retired, for whatever reason.

The percentage of adults who are retired also increases with age: 5

percent of 55-to 59-year-olds, 19 percent of 60- to 64-year-olds, 32 percent of

65- to 69-year-olds, and 39 percent of adults age 70 and older. These

percentages would be slightly higher if the percentages who were retired and

volunteering were added in.

On each literacy scale, older adults who were employed and those who

were retired and volunteering demonstrated comparable average proficiencies.

These two groups, in turn, outperformed older adults who were out of the

labor force or retired (table 3.2). On the quantitative literacy scale, they also

outperformed individuals who were unemployed.

●

60 . . . . . . Chapter 3
The differences in average literacy proficiencies by employment status are

reflected in the distributions of adults across the literacy levels. On the prose

scale, for example, about one-quarter of adults age 60 and older who were

employed and of those who were retired and doing volunteer work performed

in Level 1. Older adults who were out of the labor force (40 percent) or retired

(47 percent) were more likely to score in this literacy level. (Although 46

percent of unemployed older adults performed in Level 1, when compared

with the percentages who were employed or retired and volunteering, the

differences do not reach statistical significance.) In all, 56 percent of those who

\

_ Table 3.2

l%

/zN\-

‘:.= Percentages of older adults in each literacy level and

average literacy proficiencies, by labor force group

Literacy scale/

labor force status

+3ow percentages

WGT N Average

n (/1000) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Proficiency

Prose

Employed 954 8,806 24 ( 2.2) 32 ( 2.1) 30 ( 1.9) 12 ( 1.5) 2 ( 0.5) 263 ( 3.0)

Unemployed 82 622 46 (1 1.3) 24 (10.3) 23 ( 6.9) 6 ( 3.0) 1 ( 1.0) 235 (12.7)

Out of labor force 1,619 16,737 40( 1.7) 35( 1.9) 20( 1.5) 4 ( 0.8) 1 ( 0.3) 235 ( 2.0)

All retired 976 12,582 47 ( 2.4) 30 ( 2.2) 18 ( 2.1) 5 ( 1.5) 1 ( 0.4) 225 ( 3.3)

Retired/volunteer 90 1,241 24 ( 8.3) 41 (10.3) 26 ( 6.4) 8 ( 4.4) 0’( 0.9) 256 ( 6.6)

Document

Employed 954 8,806 32 ( 2.1) 36 ( 2.1) 25 ( 2.2) 7 ( 1.4) 1 ( 0.3) 249 ( 2.6)

Unemployed 82 622 48 ( 7.6) 35 ( 8.4) 11 ( 7.2) 5 ( 2.8) 1 ( 1.1) 222 ( 8.6)

Out of labor force 1,619 16,737 51 ( 1.7) 34 ( 1.7) 13 ( 1.4) 2 ( 0.7) 0+( 0.1) 219 ( 2.0)

All retired 976 12,582 53 ( 2.9) 30 ( 2.5) 14 ( 1.6) 3 ( 0.8) 0’( 0.2) 216 ( 3.3)

Retired/volunteer 90 1,241 30 ( 8.0) 40 (10.3) 26 ( 5.2) 4 ( 2.7) 0’( 0.0) 249 ( 6.3)

Quantitative

Employed 954 8,806 23 ( 2.2) 30 ( 1.9) 30 ( 2.5) 14 ( 1.7) 4 ( 0.8) 268 ( 3.2)

Unemployed 82 622 47 (1 0.7) 26 (10.4) 20 ( 6.1) 6 ( 3.6) 2 ( 1.2) 222 (1 1.8)

Out of labor force 1,619 16,737 45 ( 1.8) 29 ( 2.1) 19 ( 1.6) 5 ( 0.8) 1 ( 0.5) 227 ( 2.7)

All retired 976 12,582 45 ( 2.3) 23 ( 1.9) 21 ( 1.8) 9 ( 1.3) 2 ( 0.6) 228 ( 4.0)

Retired/volunteer 90 1,241 24 (10.6) 33 (13.9) 29 ( 7.7) 14 ( 5.1) 1 ( 1.9) 268 ( 7.1)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be s~d to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

+ Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to O.

Source U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

●

●

●
were employed, 65 percent of those who were retired and volunteering, and 70

percent or more of those who were unemployed, out of the labor force, or

retired scored in the two lowest levels of prose literacy.

The pattern for the quantitative scale is similar, although the percentages

of older adults who were unemployed (47 percent), out of the labor force, or

retired (both 45 percent) performing in the lowest level are about double the

percentages of those who were employed (23 percent) or retired and

volunteering (24 percent) scoring in this level.

As suggested by the relatively low average document scores of older

adults, the pattern of results for this literacy scale varies slightly from that for

the other two scales, Employed older adults (32 percent) were still less likely

than those who were either out of the labor force or retired (51 and 53 percent,

respectively) to perform in the lowest level of document literacy, When the

latter two groups are compared with older adults who were retired and

volunteering, however, the differences do not reach statistical significance.

Further, 68 to 70 percent of those who were employed or retired and

volunteering performed in Level 1 or 2 on the document scale, and more than

80 percent of those who were unemployed, out of the ~abor force, or retired

scored in these levels.

The percentage of older adults who scored in Level 4 is small compared

with the percentages who scored in the lower levels. Yet, it is interesting to

note that on the prose and quantitative scales, empIoyed older adults were

more likely than their peers who were out of the labor force or retired to

perform in this level. For example, on the quantitative scale, 14 percent of

employed older adults were in Level 4, compared with 5 percent of those who

were out of the labor force and 9 percent of those who were retired. Further,

employed older adults were more likely than unemployed older adults to

perform in Level 4 on this literacy scale.

Another way to look at the relationship between literacy and employment

status is to determine the percentages of older adults in each literacy level who

were employed, unemployed, out of the labor force, retired, or retired and

volunteering. As shown in table 3.3, older adults’ literacy skills are, in fact,

related to their involvement in the labor force. That is, as the literacy level

increases, the percentage of older adults who were employed increases, and the

percentage who were out of the labor force generally decreases.

On all three literacy scales, nearly half the older adults who performed in

Level 1 or 2 reported being either unemployed or out of the labor force. In

contrast, about 30 percent of the older adults who scored in Level 4 are in

these categories.

●

62 . . . . . . Chapter 3
A closer look at these datn maybe helpful. On the quantitative scale. for

example, only 13 percent of the older adults who scored in Level 1 \vere

employed, compared with 46 percent of those performing in Level !5. In

contrast, nearly half the older adults in Level 1 (48 percent) but OUIV about

one-quarter (23 percent) of those in Level 5 were out of the labor force.

~ Table 3.3

FJll

#zk\>- A:&S Percentages of older adults in each literacy level

in various labor force groups

Literacy scale/

labor force status

Column percentages

WGT N Average

n (/1000) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Proficiency

Prose

Employed 954 8,806 14 ( 1.9) 22 ( 1.9) 32 ( 2.1) 45 ( 4.3) --- 263 ( 3.0)

Unemployed 82 622 2 ( 8.6) 1 ( 7.0) 2 ( 6.4) 2 ( 2.7) --- 235 (12.7)

Out of labor force 1,619 16,737 45( 1.6) 47( 1.8) 39( 1.6) 29( 1.9) ---

All retired

235 ( 2.0)

976 12,582 39 ( 2.4) 29 ( 2.1) 27 ( 2.1) 24 ( 3.9) --- 225 ( 3.3)

Retired/volunteer 90 1,241 2 ( 6.1) 4 ( 6.2) 4 ( 5.3) 4 ( 3.5) --- 256 ( 6.6)

Document

Employed 954 8,806 15 ( 2.1) 25 ( 2.0) 35 ( 2.4) 45 ( 3.2) --- 249 ( 2.6)

Unemployed 82 622 2 ( 6.3) 2 ( 8.0) 1 ( 5.4) 2 ( 2.1) --- 222 ( 8.6)

Out of labor force 1,619 16,737 47 ( 1,7) 45 ( 2.0) 35 ( 2.3) 25 ( 5.2) ---

All retired

219 ( 2.0)

976 12,582 36 ( 2.7) 29 ( 2.2) 29 ( 2.0) 28 ( 3.8) --- 216 ( 3.3)

Retired/volunteer 90 1,241 2 ( 5.7) 4 ( 7.0) 5 ( 4.6) 4 ( 2.7) --- 249 ( 6.3)

Quantitative

Employed 954 8,806 13 ( 1.9) 25 ( 1,9) 31 ( 2.3) 36 ( 2.8) 46 ( 6.9) 268 ( 3.2)

Unemployed 82 622 2 ( 8.5) 2 ( 6.8) 1 ( 5.8) 1 ( 3.3) 2 ( 1.1) 222 (11.8)

Out of labor force 1,619 16,737 48 ( 1.8) 47 ( 2.5) 38 ( 1,8) 27 ( 2.9) 23 ( 5.4) 227 ( 2,7)

All retired 976 12,582 37 ( 2.3) 27 ( 2.1) 30 ( 1,8) 36 ( 2.4) 29 ( 3.2) 228 ( 4.0)

Retired/volunteer 90 1,241 2 ( 5.6) 4 ( 7.0) 4 ( 6.5) 5 ( 4.3) 1 ( 2.4) 268 ( 7.1)

“ = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total

sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population values can be said to be

within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

-– Sample size is too small to provide a reliable proficiency estimate.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

●

●

●

Chapter 3......6 3
Survey participants were asked several questions about their ci~tic and

community involvement. Specifically, they \vere asked whether they had done

any volunteer work in the last \veek, and whether they had voted in a national

or state election within the past five years. The results indicate that ci~ic and

community involvement are strongly associated with literacy among older

adults. Persons age 60 and older with higher literacy proficiencies are, on

average, more likely to vote and to perform volunteer work, and thus play a

more active role in their communities.

Volunteer activity \

Fourteen percent of the older adult population reported that they had

volunteered in the last week, compared with 10 percent of the younger

population (table 3.4). These figures may underestimate volunteer activity, due

to the time frame used in the National Adult Literacy Survey question. Other

surveys that address this issue typically use an expanded time frame (e.g., the

last month, the last year, ever) in estimating voluiiteer;ctivity.’

F

Table 3.4 Aikti 4:*= percentages of adults, by volunteer

J

involvement and by age

Age/ Row percentages

volunteer

involvement WGT N

n (/1 000) Yes No

60 and older 3,714 39,435 14 (0.7) 86 (0.7)

16t059 22,377 151,854 10 (0.3) 90 (0.3)

n = sample size WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95°A certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

3 S.M. Chambre. (1993). “Volunteerism by Elders: Past Trends and Future Prospects,” The Gerontologist, 33

(2).

●

64 . . . . . . Chapter 3
Older persons who had recently volunteered demonstrated stronger

literacy skills, on average, than those who had not (table 3.5). on the prose and

quantitative scales, the average scores of volunteers are about 260, compared

with about 230 for those who had not volunteered, while on the document

scale the corresponding figures are 247 and 221, respectively. The same

general pattern is found among younger persons.

_ Table 3.5

Fa

Aiiikw 4:w- Average literacy proficiencies of adults, \

by volunteer involvement and by age

Age/ Average proficiencies

volunteer

involvement WGT N

n (/1 000) Prose Document Quantitative

.

60 and older

Yes 571 5,452 262 (2.8) 247 (2.8) 261 (4.1)

No 3,143 33,983 234 (1 .7) 221 (1.7) 232 (2.2)

16t059

Yes 2,305 15,254 309 (1 .5) 301 (1 .5) 304 (1 .3)

No 20,072 136,601 278 (0.6) 275 (0.7) 278 (0.7)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

●

●

●
Voting

More than 80 percent of the older adult population reported having voted in a

national or state election in the United States within the past five years,

compared with about 62 percent of the younger population (table 3.6). These

percentages may be slightly elevated, as some respondents who did not vote

may have reported doing so,~ but they are relatively consistent with data from

other sources.5

Older voters tended to perform better in the literacy assessment than their

non voting peers. On each of the three scales the average older voter

performed in the Level 2 range, while the average non voter in this age group

scored in the Level 1 range (table 3.7). For example, the average prose score of

older voters is 245, compared with 203 for non voters. Within the under-60

population, voters had average scores in the Level 3 range, while non voters

tended to score in the range for Level 2.

F

Table 3.6 4A

~:~~ Percentages of adults, by voting

a

involvement and by age

Age/ Row percentages

voting

involvement WGT N

n (/1 000) Yes No

60 and older 3,625 38,663 84 (0.6) 16 (0.6)

16t059 19,475 137,225 62 (0.5) 38 (0.5)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95V0 certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

4 S. Presser. (Winter 1990), “Can Context Changes Reduce Vote Overreporting?” Public Opinion Quartedy

5 For example, see Bureau of Census. (1989). Current Population Reports, series p.20, no. 453.

●

.0

66 Ch t 3
- Table 3.7

F%

/2dL=-

~:~~ Average literacy proficiencies of adults,

by voting involvement and by age

Age/ Average proficiencies

voting

involvement WGT N

n (/1 000) Prose Document Quantitative

60 and older

Yes 3,010 32,436 245 (1 .6) 231 (1.6) 245 (2.2)

No 615 6,227 203 (3.0) 196 (3.5) 195 (3.6)

16t059

Yes 12,474 84,942 300 (0.8) 294 (0.8) 299 (0.8)

No 7,001 52,283 263 (1.1) 262 (1 .0) 262 (1 .2)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

Source: U.S. Depaflment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

.*

Annual Household Income

The economic status of older Americans has improved substantially since the

1970s. As a result, the poverty rate among older adults (roughly 12 percent in

1990) is similar to that among adults age 25 to 64. Still, not all older persons

have benefited equally from these gains. There are, for example, significant

income disparities between older adult subpopulations defined by age, race/

ethnicity, sex, marital status, level of education, and work history. Further, older

adults are more likely than younger persons to be “near poor. “G

National Adult Literacy Survey participants were asked to report their

total household income from all sources for 1991, the year before the survey.’

These sources might include pensions, Social Security, and earnings.

Older adults (46 percent) were more likely than those under age 60 (25

percent) to report annual household incomes of less than $20,000 (table 3.8).

fi Cynthia M. Taeuber. (1992). Sixty-Fiue Plus in America. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of

Commerce, Bureau of the Census. pp. 4.6-4.7.

7 Respondents were told to consider as family anyone who fives in their household and who is refated to

them by blood, marriage, or adoption.

●

●

●
.-

- Table 3.8

Fa

/zkl-

‘:.= Percentages of adults with various levels

of annual household income, by age

Age I

Row percentages

I

WGT N Less than $10,000 to $20,000 to $40,000

n (/1 000) $10,000 $19,999 $39,999 or more

60 and older

I

2,589 27,036 20 (1 .2) 26 (1 .0) 31 (1.4) 23 (1.1)

16t059 16,247 113,246 10 (0.4) 15 (0.4) 31 (0.5) 44 (0.7)

60 to 69 1,661 14,773 15 (1 .0) 22 (1.1) 33,. (1 .7) 30 (1 .4)

70 to 79 667 9,103 21 (1 .8) 32 (1 .8) 30 (2.2) 17 (1 .9)

80 and older 261 3,160 37 (3.9) 32 (2.7) 20 (2.6) 11 (2.6)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The samole sizes for subDomJations mav not add UD

to the total sample sizes, due ‘to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard e~ors. The true” population’

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95°A certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

.

The same percentages of these two age groups (31 percent) reported incomes

of $20,000 to $39,999, and a lower percentage of older adults (23 percent) than

younger adults (44 percent) reported incomes of $40,000 or more.

Generally, as age increases, the percentages of older adults in the lower

income categories increase. Adults age 80 and older (37 percent) were more

likely than those age 70 to 79 (21 percent) to report that their household

income for the year before the survey was less than $10,000, and those age 70

to 79 were more likely than those age 60 to 69 (15 percent) to report incomes

in this category.

The literacy skills and household incomes of older adults appear to be

related. The higher their income, the higher their average literacy proficiencies

(table 3.9). For example, the average prose score of older adults from

households with incomes of $40,000 or more (279) is higher than that of adults

from households with incomes of $20,000 to $39,999 (258), which in turn is

higher than that of adults from households with incomes between $10,000 and

$19,999 (229). Older adults from households with less than $10,000 of income

had the lowest average prose score of all the groups (204). The pattern is highly

similar for the document and quantitative scales.

,

68 3
.-

The relationship between literacy and income is found within each age

group in the older adult population. Among 60-to 69-year-olds, there is a stepby-step increase in average literacy scores with each increase in income level.

For example, the average prose proficiencies of 60- to 69-year-olds rise from

212 to 288 across the income groups. For the 70 to 79 age group, proficiencies

rise until the $20,000 to $39,000 income bracket and then level off. Among

those with annual incomes below $10,000 and those with incomes of $20,000 to

~ Table 3.9

U

#:x Percentages of older adults in each literacy level and average

literacy proficiencies, by annual household income

Age/ Average proficiencies

literacy scale WGT N Less than $10,000 to $20,000 to $40,000

n (/1000) $10,000 $19,999 - $39,999 or more

60 and older 2,589 27,036

Prose 204 (4.0) 229 (3.1) 258 (3.3) 279 ( 3.6)

Document 189 (3.4) 216 (3.4) 242 (2.7) 266 ( 3.1)

Quantitative 189 (4.1) 231 (4.0) 261 (3.4) 287 ( 4.0)

16t059 16.247 113.246

Prose 249 (3.1) 265 (1 .9) 284 (1 .0) 311 ( 1.0)

Document 245 (3.3) 261 (1 .9) 281 (1.1) 305 ( 0.8)

Quantitative 241 (3.5) 264 (1 .8) 284 (1 .0) 311 ( 0.9)

60 to 69 1,661 14,773

Prose 212 (4.8) 245 (2.6) 261 (3.7) 288 ( 3.0)

Document 198 (5.3) 232 (3.4) 248 (2.8) 274 ( 2.6)

Quantitative 201 (5.4) 246 (3.8) 265 (3.5) 294 ( 3.6)

70 to 79 667 9,103

Prose 203 (5.4) 222 (5.2) 258 (4.6) 263 (11.1)!

Document 188 (4.5) 209 (5.4) 241 (4.1) 255 ( 9.7)!

Quantitative 185 (6.4) 223 (6.0) 265 (5.7) 276 (12.1)!

80 and older 261 3,160

Prose 192 (6.5)! 201 (7.7)! --- ---

Document 175 (4.9)! 185 (8.6)! --- ---

Quantitative 172 (6.3)! 207 (9.8)! --- ---

n = sample size WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopuiations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

--- Sample size is too small to provide a reliable proficiency estimate.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

Source: U.S. Depafiment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

●

✎

●

Chapte r 3 6 9
$39,999, adults age 60 to 69 and 70 to 79 performed comparably, on average.

In the other two income brackets, however, 60-to 69-year-olds tended to

outperform 70- to 79-year-olds.

The proficiency level results show that the percentage of older adults in

Level 1 decreases as household income increases (table 3.10). On the prose

scale, for example, 64 percent of older adults with household incomes below

$10,000 scored in Level 1. The percentage drops to 44 percent among those

with household incomes of $10,000 to $19,999, to 25 percent for the $20,000 to

$39,999 income group, and to 14 percent for those with household incomes of

$40,000 or more.

-

RllI Table 3.10 A:i

Literacy levels and average literacy proficiencies of older

adults with various levels of annual household income

.

Literacy scale/ Row percentages

annual income

WGT N Average

n (/1000) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Proficiency

‘rose

Less than $10,000 664 5,355 64 (2.8) 27 (2.6) 9 (1 .8) 1 (0.5) 0’(0.1 ) 204 (4.0)

$10,000 to $19,999 635 7,135 44 (2.9) 36 (3.0) 17 (1 .9)

$20,000 to $39,999

3 (0.8) 0’(0. 1 ) 229 (3.1)

728 8,293 25 (2.9) 37 (2.8) 30 (2.1) 8 (1.6) 1 (0,5) 258 (3.3)

$40,000 or more 562 6,254 14 (1.9) 29 (3.0) 37 (3.3) 16 (2.6) 4 (0.8) 279 (3.6)

)ocument

Less than $10,000 664 5,355 72 (3.0) 22 (2.9) 5 (1.4)

$10,000 to $19,999

0’(0.3) 0’(0.1) 189 (3.4)

635 7,135 54 (2.8) 34 (3.5) 11 (2.7) 1 (0.6) 0’(0.2) 216 (3.4)

$20,000 to $39,999 728 8,293 34 (2.5) 40 (2.3) 21 (2.4) 4 (1 .2) 0’(0.3) 242 (2.7)

$40,000 or more 562 6,254 18 (2.3) 38 (2.7) 32 (2.3) 10 (2.0) 1 (0.7) 266 (3.1)

Quantitative

Less than $10,000 664 5,355 69 (3.2) 21 (2.9) 9 (1.7) 2 (1.0) 0’(0.2)

$10,000 to $19,999

189 (4.1)

635 7,135 43 (3.2) 31 (2.4) 21 (2.3) 5 (1.2) 0’(0.3) 231 (4.0)

$20,000 to $39,999 728 8,293 - 25 (2.1) 31 (2.2) 30 (2.6) 12 (1.5) 2 (1.1) 261 (3.4)

$40,000 or more 562 6,254 13 (2.4) 27 (3.1) 36 (3.0) 19 (3.0) 6 (1 .4) 287 (4.0)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

+ Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to O.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. National Adult Literacy Survey.

1992.

●

● *

70 Ch t 3
-.

Level of education and annual household income —. ———

The survey results indicate a clear relationship between education and

household income: less educated older adults were far more likelv than their

better educated peers to report low levels of annual household incolme (table

3.11 ). Two-thirds of older adults who had not earned a high school diploma

reported annual household incomes under $20,000, compared with 41 percent

of those with a high school diploma or GED and 23 percent of those with some

postsecondary education. Within each level of education, older adults were

more likely than younger adults to have annual incomes below $20,000.

Further, there is a relationship between literacy proficiency and household

income within each education level (table 3.12). When the skills of individuals

with the same level of education are compared, older adults with household

incomes of $20,000 or more have higher average proficiencies than those with

incomes below $20,000. Among older adults who had not completed high

school, for example, the prose proficiencies of those with household incomes of

$20,000 or more is 223, compared with 197 for those with household incomes

of less than $20,000. For older adults with a high school diploma or GED, the

corresponding prose proficiencies are 265 and 245, respectively; and for older

adults with a postsecondary education, they are 293 and 263, respectively.

~Table 3. I 1

h

‘~~:= Percentages of adults with more or less than $20,000 of

annual household income, by level of education and by age

Age/ Row percentages

level of education

WGT N Less than $20,00 or

n (/1 000) $20,000 more

60 and older

O to 12 years 965 11,177 67 (2.2) 33 (2.2)

High school/GED 686 7,271 41 (2.2) 59 (2.2)

Postsecondary 933 8,482 23 (1 .9) 77 (1 .9)

16t059

O to 12 years 2,640 20,199 48 (1 .4) 52 (1 .4)

High school/GED 4,510 35,713 27 (0.9) 73 (0.9)

Postsecondaty 9,073 57,131 16 (0.8) 84 (0.8)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95°A certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy SIJtVeY,

1992.

●

●

“
-.

~——. G— Table 3.12

RJl

A:kl Average literacy proficiencies of adults with more or less than $20,000

of annual household income, by level of education and by age

Age/ Average proficiencies

level of education

literacy scale WGT N Less than $20,00 or

n (/1 000) $20,000 more

60 and older

O to 12 years 965 11,177

Prose 197 (3.3) 223 (4.7)

Document 184 (3.0) 214 (5.2)

Quantitative 188 (4.1) 230 (6.0)

High school/GED 686 7,271

Prose 245 (3.9) 265 (4.1)

Document 228 (3.8) 249 (3.6)

Quantitative 242 (4.4) 270 (4.1)

Postsecondary 933 8,482

Prose 263 (3.8) 293 (3.1)

Document 249 (3.7) 278 (2.5)

Quantitative 267 (4.5) 299 (3.4)

16t059 .-

0 to 12 years 2,640 20,199

Prose 213 (2.2) 247 (2.6)

Document 209 (2.2) 246 (2.7)

Quantitative 207 (2.3) 246 (2.4)

High school/GED 4,510 35,713

Prose 266 (2.0) 283 (1 .0)

Document 262 (1 .9) 278 (1 .0)

Quantitative 264 (2.0) 283 (1.1)

Postsecondary 9,073 57,131

Prose 302 (2.3) 321 (0.9)

Document 297 (2.5) 315 (0.8)

Quantitative

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

Within each income category, the average literacy scores of older adults

increase with each successive level of education. For example, among those

with annual household incomes below $20,000, the quantitative proficiency of

older adults without a high school diploma is 188, compared with 242 for those

with a high school diploma or GED, and 267 for those with some

postsecondary education. It is noteworthy that the only group of older adults to

perform in Level 1 on all three scales is school dropouts with annual household

incomes below $20,000.

●

● *

72 Ch t 3
The relationship between adults’ age, level of education, and annual

household income is quite complex. When the literac} skills of older and

younger adults in the same income bracket and with the same level of

education are compared, the younger group outperforms the older group on

each proficiency scale. Further, on the prose and quantitative scales, older

adults who have annual incomes below $.20,000 and have completed some

postsecondary education demonstrate about the same average proficiencies as

younger persons who are in the same income bracket but who have a high

school diploma or GED.

Race and annual household income

\

Other studies have found that Black older adults tend to have lower incomes

than White older adults.~ This general pattern also appears in the National

Adult Literacy Survey data. Approximately two-thirds of Black older adults (68

percent) reported annual household incomes below $20,000, compared with 44

percent of White older adults (table 3. 13). In the Black and White populations

alike, adults age 60 and older were more likely- than ~hose under 60 to report

this low level of household income.

F“. .— Table 3.13 &LIN\-

‘:i?m Percentages of adults with more or less than $20,000 of

J

annual household income, by race and by age

Age/ Row percentages

race

WGT N Less than $20,00 or

n (/1 000) $20,000 more

60 and older

White 2,007 23,240 44 (1 .7) 56 (1 .7)

Black 385 2,004 68 (3.1) 32 (3.1)

16t059

White 11,396 87,158 20 (0.7) 80 (0.7)

Black 2,583 11,101 41 (1 .5) 59 (1 .5)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopuiations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95°A certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

* U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1991). Aging America, Washington, DC: Department of

Health and Human Services, p. 51.

73
Regardless of race/ethnicity, there is a strong relationship between

household income and literacy in the older adult population (table 3.14).

Among White older adults, the average scores of those with annual household

incomes at or above $20,000 are 44 to 54 points higher than those of their

peers with incomes below s20,000. Similarly, Black older adults in the upper

income bracket outperformed their peers in the lower income bracket by 47 to

60 points across the scales. Interestingly, the performance gaps between adults

in these two income levels are smaller in the under-60 age groups than in the

older groups. Among White adults under 60, for example, individuals with

household incomes of $20,000 or more outperformed those with incomes

below $20,000 by 26 to 30 points across the literacy scales. Similarly, for the

~ Table 3.I4

Fa

“’~== Average literacy proficiencies of adults with more or less than

$20,000 of annual household income, by race and by age

-~

Agel Average proficiencies

race/

literacy scale WGT N Less than $20,00 or

n (/1 000) $20,000 more

60 and older

White 2,007 23,240

Prose 228 (2.6) 272 ( 2.3)

Document 213 (2.8) 257 ( 2.1)

Quantitative 225 (3.4) 278 ( 2.8)

Black 385 2,004

Prose 187 (4.8) 234 ( 8.6)!

Document 173 (3.9) 222 ( 7.9)!

Quantitative 165 (5.5) 225 (1 0.3)!

16t059

White 11,396 87,158

Prose 280 (2.1) 308 ( 0.9)

Document 277 (2.4) 303 ( 0.8)

Quantitative 279 (2.0) 309 ( 0.9)

Black 2,583 11,101

Prose 235 (2.1) 264 ( 2.0)

Document 227 (2.1) 257 ( 2.0)

Quantitative 220 (2.2) 255 ( 2.1)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with %yo certainty.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

74 3
under-60 Black population, adults in the upper income bracket outperformed

those in the lower bracket by 29 to 35 points across the scales.

At each income level, White older adults had higher avemge literacy

proficiencies than Black older adults. (The data for Black older adults i]l the

$20,000 or more category should be interpreted with caution, however, due to

the small sample size. ) For example, the average prose score of White older

adults with annual household incomes below $20,000 is 228, compared with

187 for Black older adults with the same level of income.

Sex and annual household income

Table 3.15 shows the percentages of males and females with various levels of

annual household income. Females age 60 and older were more likely than

their male peers to have annual household incomes below $10,000 and of

$10,000 to $19,999. In turn, older males (64 percent) were more likely than

older females (44 percent) to have annual incomes of $20,000 or more. In sum,

more than half the female older adults reported having annual household

incomes below $20,000, compared with about one-third of the male older

.

adults. The lower incomes of older women are largely a result of their

depending on men for their economic base, and of their changing status with

?m Table 3.15

Fa

%.= Percentages of adults with various levels of

annual household income, by sex and by age

Age/ Row percentages

sex

WGT N Less than $10,00 to

n (/1 000) $10,000

$20,000

$19,999 or more

60 and older

Male 1,078 13,561 13 (1.2) 23 (1 .5)

Female

64 (1 .6)

1,508 13,454 27 (1 .5) 29 (1 .4) 44 (2.0)

16t059

Male 7,252 56,254 8 (0.6) 14 (0.6) 77 (0.8)

Female 8,971 56,827 12 (0.5) 16 (0.6)- 72 (0.8)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with %~o certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.
;..

old ages Widowed or divorced older women are particularly likely to have low

incomes because of the loss of their spouse’s income or pension.

When compared with the under-60 population, male and female older

adults were more likely to report having incomes that were either below

$10,OOO or between $10,OOO and $19,999. The difference between the two age

groups is more pronounced, however, among females: more than twice as many

older women than younger women reported incomes below $10,000.

Older males and females with comparable levels of household income

tended to display comparable literacy proficiencies (table 3.16). An exception

occurs at the $10,000 to $19,999 income level, however, where the average

prose score of older women is higher than that of men.

_ Table 3.16

Fa

A?IN\- A:kl Average literacy proficiencies of adults with various levels of

annual household income, by sex and by age

Age/ Average proficiencies

Seld .

literacy scale WGT N Less than $10,00 to $20,000

n (/1 000) $10,000 $19,999 or more

60 and older

Male 1,078 13,561

Prose 192 (8.5)! 217 (4.6) 265 (3.4)

Document 181 (6.4)! 210 (5.0)

Quantitative

253 (2.7)

183 (9.0)! 228 (5.7) 278 (3.7)

Female 1,508 13,454

Prose 210 (2.9) 239 (3.5) 270 (3.0)

Document 194 (3.4) 221 (4.1) 253 (2.9)

Quantitative 192 (3.9) 234 (5.2) 264 (3.4)

16t059

Male 7,252 56,254

Prose 246 (4.6) 258 (2.8) 298 (0.9)

Document 244 (4.8) 256 (2.9) 295 (1 .0)

Quantitative 243 (4.7) 261 (2.8) 303 (1.1)

Female 8,971 56,827

Prose 251 (3.2) 272 (2.7) 302 (1.1)

Document 245 (3.2) 266 (2.5) 295 (0.9)

Quantitative 240 (3.6) 266 (2.6) 296 (1 .0)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95°A certainty.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

g U.S. Department of Health and Human Sewices. (1991). Aging America. Washington, DC: Department of

Health and Human Setvices, p. 46.

,

● *

76 Chapter 3
The literacy proficiencies of males as well as females tend to increase as

income level increases, regardless of age. For example, older females with

annual household incomes below $10,000 have an average prose score of 210,

compared with 239 for older females with incomes of $10,000 to $19,999. and

270 for older females with incomes of $20,000 or more.

. . ..-.s-.,

.,,

. ...,,.,.-,,

The employment and retirement rates for adults age 60 and older follow

predictable patterns. The percentages of older adults who were employed or

unemployed decrease with age, while the percentage who were retired

increases with age. The percentage who were out of the labor force also rises

with age.

On each literacy scale, older adults who were employed and those who

were retired and volunteering had about the same literacy scores, on average.

These two groups tended to outperform those who were out of the labor force

or retired. As the literacy level increases, the percentage of older adults who

were employed also increases, while the percentagewho were out of the labor

force decreases.

Fourteen percent of older adults reported that they had volunteered in

the past week, while 84 percent said they had voted in a national or state

election in the past five years. Literacy proficiency is related to civic

involvement in the older adult population. Adults age 60 and older who said

they had recently volunteered and voted demonstrated stronger literacy skills,

on average, than those who had not engaged in such activities.

Older adults were more likely than younger adults to report annual

household incomes below $20,000. Higher levels of household income are

related to stronger literacy proficiencies, on average. Among 60- to 69-yearolds, for example, there is a step-by-step increase in average literacy scores

with each increase in income level.

older adults who had not completed high school reported lower annual

incomes, on average, than those whose highest level of education was a high

school diploma or GED or some postsecondary education. Further, within the

older adult population; Black adults were more likely than White adults, and

women were more likely than men, to report low annual incomes. When level

of income is held constant, the average literacy scores of Black adults are lower

than those of White adults, but the average scores of men and women are

comparable.
-.

.

‘78 . . . . . . Chapter 3
Literacy Practices and Proficiencies

in the Older Adult Population

Survey participants were asked a series of questions about their literacy

practices, such as where they learned to read various types of materials, how

often they use the library, how often they read a newspaper, how many

magazines they read on a regular basis, and how frequently they engage in

various types of personal and work-related literacy activities. The results make

it possible to explore connections between older adults’ everyday literacy

activities and their demonstrated prose, document, and quantitative skills.

..~cquisition of Literacy Skiils

Survey respondents were asked where they primarily learned to read

newspapers, magazines, or books; to read graphs, diagrams, or maps; to fill out

forms; and to write letters, memos, or reports, The choices were: at school, at

home or in the community, at work, did not learn, and “other.”

Most people reported learning to read newspapers, magazines, and books

at school, but a large percentage indicated that they learned this skill at home

(table 4.1). The percentages vary slightly by age, with the younger age group

more likely than the older group (62 and 55 percent, respectively) to report

learning to read these materials at school. On the other hand, a greater

percentage of the older population than the younger population reported

learning to read prose materials at home (42 percent, compared with 36

percent).

Reading documents (such as graphs, diagrams or maps) is a skill acquired

primarily in school, regardless of age cohort. Older persons, however, were

more likely than younger persons to report never having learned this particular

skill. More than four out of five persons age 16 to 59 (82 percent) reported

having learned to read documents in school, compared with 68 percent of older

individuals. While similar percentages of adults under age 60 and those 60 and

older reported learning these skills at home (9 and 13 percent, respectively)

and work (6 to 7 percent), only 3 percent of those under 60 reported never

learning to read documents, compared with 10 percent of the older population.

.

Chapter
?

~ Table 4.1

Fa

/2dL=- 4:u= Percentages of Adults by Place Where They Learned

to Read Different Materials, by Age Group

Type of Row percentages

material/

age group WGT N Did not

n (/1 000) School Home Work learn Other

Newspapers,

books, magazines

60 and older 3,692 39,315 55 (1 .0) 42 (1 .0) 1 (0.3) 2 (0.3)

16t059

0’(0.1)

21,218 150,865 62 (0.5) 36 (0.5) 1 (0.1) 1 (0.1) 0’(0.0)

Graphs, maps

60 and older 3,693 39,327 68 (1 .0) 13 (0.8) 7 (0,5) 10 (0.7)

16t059

2 (0.3)

21,210 150,785 82 (0.4) 9 (0.3) 6 (0.2) 3 (0.1) 1 (0.1)

Forms

60 and older 3,696 39,387 48 (1 .2) 23 (0.8) 21 (0.8)

16t059

6 (0.5) 2 (0.4)

21,209 150,820 63 (0.6) 18 (0.4) 16 (0.4) 2 (0.1) 1 (0.1)

Letters

60 and older 3,694 39,369 62 (1 .0) 24 (0.9) 11 (0.6)

16t059

3 (0.3) 1 (0.2)

21,505 150,836 75 (0.4) 13 (0.3) .10 (Q.3) 1 (0.1) 0’(0.0)

n = sample size WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errocs. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with %~o certainty,

+ Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to O.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

Adults in each age group were most likely to report learning how to fill out

forms in school. While 63 percent of adults under 60 reported learning this skill

in school, however, this is true of only about half the older population. In

contrast, 23 percent of older adults learned how to fill out forms at home,

compared with 18 percent of those under age 60. Twenty-one percent of the

older group learned this skill at work, as opposed to 16 percent of the younger

group. Six percent of those over the age of 60 reported never having learned to

fdl out forms, compared with 2 percent of younger persons.

The place where letter writing was learned varies by age. Three-quarters

of those below age 60 (75 percent) learned this skill at school, compared with

62 percent of those age 60 and older. Conversely, almost a quarter (24 percent)

of the older adults and 13 percent of the younger adults learned letter writing

at home. About 10 percent of each group learned this skill at work.

e

**

80 . . . . . . Chapter 4
-.

.

Among 16- to 59-year-olds, literacy proficiencies do not vary significantly

according to whether individuals learned to read newspapers and other prose

materials in school or at home (table 4.2). Performance does vary significantly

among persons age 60 and older, however. C)lder persons who acquired prose

skills in school demonstrated higher literacy proficiencies, on average, than

those who learned these skills at home.

_ Table 4.2

Fd

AAAN=W

‘:.== Average literacy proficiencies of adults who learned to read different

materials in various places, by type of material and by age

Type of material/ Average proficiencies

literacy scale/

age group

WGT N Did not

n (/1 000) School Home Work learn Other

Newspapers, -z

books, magazines

Prose

60 and older 3,692 39,315 244 (1 .8) 235 (2.1) 225 (17.7)! 106 (11.1)! ---

16t059 21,218 150,865 283 (0.8) 284 (1 .2) 243 ( 5.1)! 110 ( 5.9)! ---

Document

60 and older 3,692 39,315 232 (1 .7) 220 (2.1) 203 ( 2.4)! 119 ( 9.3)! -–

16t059 21,218 150,865 279 (0.8) 280 (1 .2) 244 ( 4.9)! 122 ( 6.5)! --

Graphs, maps

Document

60 and older 3,693 39,327 237 (1.7) 211 (3.3) 229 ( 4.8) 163 ( 4.5) 184 ( 7.8)!

16t059 21,210 150,785 286 (0.7) 260 (2.2) 268 ( 2.1) 168 ( 4.2) 215 ( 6.6)!

Quantitative

60 and older 3,693 39,327 250 (2.3) 223 (4.3) 248 ( 6.3) 162 ( 4.9) 179 (11 .2)!

16t059 21,210 150,785 288 (0.6) 264 (2.2) 276 ( 2.2) 160 ( 4.4) 222 ( 8.0)!

Fotms

Document

60 and older 3,696 39,387 239 (1 .8) 209 (2.8) 235 ( 2.4) 144 ( 6.0) 201 (18.7)!

16t059 21,209 150,820 281 (0.9) 275 (1 .8) 285 ( 1.4) 149 ( 5.3) 246 (1 0.8)!

Letters

Prose

60 and older 3,694 39,369- 245 (1 .5) 219 (3.3) 264 ( 5.1) 135 (11.1)! -–

16t059 21,505 150,836 284 (0.6) 265 (1 .8) 304 ( 1 .9) 147 ( 6.5)! 220 (12.6)!

n = sample sizq WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errora of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

--- Sample size is too small to provide a reliable proficiency estimate.

! Interpret with c&tion. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

Chapter 4......8 1
Among adults under age 60, those who learned to read graphs and maps in

school demonstrated higher average document and quantitative proficiencies

than those who learned this skill elsewhere. Among those age 60 and older,

however, there are no significant proficiency differences between those who

learned this skill in school and those who learned it at work. The fact that older

adults were less likely than younger adults to report learning graph or map

reading in school, and were more likely not to learn these skills at all, may

partly explain the relatively large gap in document proficiency between the

older and younger populations. Even so, the literacy proficiencies of the older

population are considembly lower than those of the younger population,

regardless of the place of learning these particular skills. For adults in both age

groups who had not learned to read graphs or maps, the average document and

quantitative scores are about the same.

Within the under-60 population, there are no significant differences in

performance according to where individuals learned to fill out forms. There is

considerable variation within the older population, however. Adults age 60 and

older who learned this skill at home demonstrated considerably lower

document proficiencies, on average, than those_ who ;cquired this skill in school

or at work.

As with learning to read graphs and maps, older adults were more likely

than younger adults to report that they learned how to fill out forms at home,

and to report that they had not learned this skill at all. This does not fully

explain the weak document literacy skills of older persons, however. Even when

the place of learning is held constant, younger persons still outperformed older

persons. The biggest differences in performance between the two populations

occur among those who learned to read forms at home. The gap mu-rows

between older and younger adults who learned this skill in school. Again, the

average document proficiencies of adults in both age groups who did not learn

to fill out forms are similar.

Those who learned to write letters at work displayed stronger literacy

skills, on average, than those who acquired this skill in school or at home. The

younger age group has consistently higher average prose scores than the older

group, regardless of where letter-writing skills were learned.

.

82 4
-., .;

Beyond providing a place for reading, the local public library is often cited M a

potential information source, point of public contact, and clearinghouse for

older persons, offering access to information and social senices. 1 Still, more

than half (59 percent) the older adult population reported that they never use

the public library, while only about one-fifth said they use it at least once a

month (table 4.3). In contrast, 28 percent of adults under age 60 said they

never use the library, while 39 percent are regular (at least monthly) users.

Adults’ literacy skills are strongly associated with their library use: The

more frequent the use, the higher the literacy proficiencies tend to be (table

4.4). Sixty-one percent of older adults who never use the library performed in

Level 1 on the document literacy scale, and slightly more than half performed

in this level on the prose and quantitative scales. Libra~ users were far less

likely (17 to 32 percent) to perform in that level on any of the literacy scales.

on average, the prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of older

adults who do not use the library are in the Level 1 range. older adults who

F

Table 4.3 AIL=

~:-== Percentages of adults, by frequency

J

of library use and by age

Row percentages

Age

Once or

WGT N twice

n (/1 000) Daily Weekly Monthly a year Never

60 and older 3,694 39,370 1 (0.2) 7 (0.5) 11 (0.7) 22 (1 .0) 59 (0.9)

16t059 21,231 151,001 3 (0.2) 14 (0.3) 22 (0.5) 34 (0.5) 28 (0.5)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estirhate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopuiations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95V0 certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

1 B.B. Mcmre and C.C. Young. (November 1985). “LibraryAnformation Semites and the Nation’s Elderly,”

]ourrsal of the American Society for Information Scimce, 36 (6).

Chapte r 4 8 3
use the library once or twice a year tended to demonstrate stronger literacy

skills than mm users, and those who use the librmy monthly or weekly tended

to display the highest proficiencies. Although weekly users constitute less than

10 percent of the older population, their prose and quantitative scores are quite

high, falling in the range fbr Level 3.

~ Table 4.4

F%

dAAh\\- 4:-- percentages of older adults in each literacy level

and average literacy proficiencies, by frequency of library use

Literacy scale/

frequency of Row percentages

library use WGT N Average

n (/1 000) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Proficiency

Prose

Daily 39 306 --- --- --- --- --- ---

Weekly 282 2,876 17 (4.0) 29 (4.3) 36 (4.0) 15 (3.5) 3 (1.5) 278 (3.9)

Monthly 450 4,313 17 (2.6) 34 (3.4) 34 (3.4) 12 (2.0) 2 (1.1) 274 (2.9)

Yearly 860 8,597 24 (2.2) 35 (2.6) 30 (2.8) 10 (1 .4) 1 (0.5) 262 (2.9)

Never 2,063 23,279 52 (1 .7) 32 (1 .8) 14 (1 .3) 2 (0.6) 0’(0. 1 ) 216 (2.0)

Document

Daily 39 306 --- --- --- --- --- ---

Weekly 282 2,876 23 (3.5) 37 (3.7) 29 (3.9) 10 (3.1) 1 (1.3) 263 (3.9)

Monthly 450 4,313 24 (3.2) 38 (4.2) 29 (4.0) 8 (2.1) 1 (0.6) 258 (3.0)

Yearly 860 8,597 32 (2.6) 39 (3.4) 23 (2.1) 6 (1 .2) 0’(0.3) 247 (2.7)

Never 2,063 23,279 61 (1 .5) 29 (1 .7) 9 (1.0) 1 (0.5) 0’(0.1) 204 (1 .9)

Quantitative

Daily 39 306 --- --- --- --- --- ---

Weekly 282 2,876 20 (3.4) 28 (3.4) 29 (3.8) 18 (3.1) 5 (2.5) 278 (4.1)

Monthly 450 4,313 20 (2.7) 28 (3.4) 31 (3.4) 16 (2.4) 4 (1.7) 274 (4.7)

Yearly 860 8,597 25 (2.4) 29 (2.1) 30 (2.4) 12 (1 .8) 3 (0.9) 265 (3.2)

Never 2,063 23,279 53 (1 .7) 26 (1 .4) 16 (1 .7) 4 (1.0) 1 (0.2) 212 (2.7)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size e@imate / 1,000. The sample sizes for sub~opulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard enors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95V0 certainty.

+ Percentages less than 0.5 are rounded to O.

--- Sample size is too small to provide a reliable proficiency estimate.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.
Survey respondents were asked how often they read newspapers in English.

Regular newspaper reading is somewhat more prevalent among older persons

than among younger persons (table 4.5). Four out of five (80 percent) of those

age 60 and older reported reading a newspaper at least a few times a week,

compared with 71 percent of adults under 60. Older adults (8 percent) were

slightly more likely than younger adults (5 percent) to report never reading a

newspaper, however.

On average, those who say they often read a newspaper demonstrate

stronger literacy skills than those who do not (table 4.6). Within the older adult

population, individuals who reported reading the newspaper at least a few

times a week have average proficiencies of approximately 250 on the prose and

quantitative scales and 236 on the document scale. For those who read the

newspaper less than a few times a week, average literacy scores drop into the

Level 1 range on all three literacy scales. It is particularly noteworthy that older

adults who never read a newspaper have such low average proficiencies (160 on

the prose scale, 146 on the document scale, and 12? on the quantitative scale)

that they are likely to be able to succeed on only the most basic literacy tasks—

and some may even have difficulty with these types of tasks.

-mFal Table 4.5

‘:.= percentages of adults, by frequency of

newspaper reading and by age

Row percentages

Age

Daily/ Less than

WGT N a few times Once a once a

n (/1 000) a week week week Never

60 and older 3,710 39,390 80 (0.8) 8 (0.5) 4 (0.4) 8 (0.5)

16t059 22,366 151,782 71 (0.6) 16 (0.4) 8 (0.2) 5 (0.2)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

●

✌

✎
The same pattern is e\ident among younger persons: adults reporting

more frequent newspaper reading tended to display stronger literacy skills.

While younger adults outperformed older adults regardless of the frequency of

newspaper reading, the gap shrinks dramaticall~r for adults who never read a

newspaper. On the prose scale. the average proficienc~r of o]der adults t~ho

read a ncnvspaper at least a fe~~’ times a week is 43 points below that of vounger

adults who read one that often. In contrast, there is only u 19-point difference

in average prose scores between older and vounger adults who never read a

newspaper.

~ Table 4.6

FJl

A:>-

Average literacy proficiencies, by frequency

of newspaper reading and by age

Average proficiencies

Age/

literacy scale Daily/ Less than

WGT N a few times Once a once a

n (/1 000) a week week week Never

60 and older 3,710 39,390

Prose 250 (1 .5) 221 (5.2) 195 (7.3)! 160 (5.6)

Document 236 (1 .5) 211 (4.6) 189 (6.3)! 146 (5,4)

Quantitative 251 (2.0) 218 (5.6) 201 (6.8)! 127 (6.6)

16t059 22,366 151,782

Prose 293 (0.7) 273 (1 .4) 267 (2.5) 179 (3.0)

Document 288 (0.7) 272 (1 .3) 265 (2.6) 179 (3.1)

Quantitative 292 (0.6) 272 (1.4) 266 (2.5) 177 (3.0)

n = samde size: WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due “to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95 YO certainty.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy SurVey,

1992.

,

86 4
The magazine reading habits of the older and younger populations differ

somewhat, as shmvn in table 4.’7. .4bollt half those in each age group reported

reading three or more magazines in English on a regular basis. I Io\\’ever, ol&-

adults (31 percent) \vere slightly less likely than ?’ounger adults (;37 percent) to

report reading one or two magpzines on a regtdar basis and ~vere more likelv to

report that they do not read any magazines (23 percent of older adults,

compared with 17 percent of younger adults).

Literacy skills are related to magazine reading (table 4.8). On all three

scales, older adults who reported reading three or more magazines in English

on a regular basis performed better in the assessment than those who reported

reading only one or two. For example, the average prose score of older adults

who read three or more magazines regularly is 262, compared with 235 for

those who read one or two. In turn, the prose literacy scores of older adults

who read one or two magazines (235) tend to be higher than those of

individuals who read no magazines (193). Thus, older persons who reported at

least some magazine reading performed, on average, in the Level 2 range,

while those who do not read magazines have proficiency scores within the

Level 1 range. The same patterns appear for younger persons, although overall

scores tend to be higher for this group than for older persons.

~ Table 4.7

Fa

AANi- A:kl Percentages of adults, by number of

magazines read and by age

Row percentages

Age

WGT N One or Three

n (/1 000) None two or more

60 and older I

3,705 39,347 23 (0.9) 31 (0.9) 46 (1 .0)

16t059 22,353 151,714 17 (0.4) 37 (0.5) 47 (0.5)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

.
~——. -— Table 4.8

rd

//lL\\-

~:~=~ Average literacy proficiencies, by

number of magazines read and by age

Age/ Average proficiencies

literacy scale WGT N One or Three

n (/1 000) None two or more

60 and older 3,705 39,347

Prose 193 (3.7) 235 (2.2) 262 (2.0)

Document 182 (3.5) 222 (2.1) 247 (1 .8)

Quantitative 185 (4.5) 236 (2.5) 261 (2.3)

\

16t059 22,353 151.714

Prose 236 (1 .8) 280 (1 .0)

Document

299 (0.7)

235 (1 .9) 277 (1 .0)

Quantitative

294 (0.7)

238 (1 .8) 279 (1 .0) 297 (0.9)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates wjth 95V9 certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

Sources of !nformaicn about Current Events

Survey participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they rely on

various sources of information about current events, public affairs, and

government. Reliance on these different sources appears to vary somewhat by

age, as shown in table 4.9. Television is the most frequently used medium, with

three out of four older persons (74 percent) and two out of three younger

persons (65 percent) getting a lot of their information from this source.

Newspapers are second for both the older adult and under-60 populations (53

and 41 percent, respectively), followed by radio (28 and 38 percent,

respectively). About the same percentages of older adults get a lot of

information from magazines and family members (2o and 22 percent,

respectively), whereas younger adults are more likely to get a lot of information

from family members than from magazines (23 and 17 percent, respectively).

Older adults were more likely than younger adults to report getting no

information from each of the sources, except television. For example, about 20

percent of older adults reported getting no information from magazines or

radio, compared with 13 and 6 percent, respectively, of younger adults,

,

.0

88 Ch t 4
~.

~ Table 4.9

Fa

LZN\- 4:1- Percentages of adults, by reliance on various

sources of information and by age

Source of Row percentages

information/

age WGT N

n (/1 000) A lot Some Little None

Newspapers

60 and older 3,693 39,383 53 (1 .0) 27 (0.9) 11 (0.5) 9 (0.6)

16t059 21,231 151,022 41 (0.6) 36 (0.5) 17 (0.4) 6 (0.2)

Magazines

60 and older 3,684 39,266 22 (0.9) 35 (0.9) 21 (0.8) 22 (0.9)

16t059 21,220 150,914 17 (0.4) 41 (0.5) 29 (0.5) 13 (0.3)

Radio

60 and older 3,692 39,323 28 (1 .0) 28 (0.8) 23 (0.8) 20 (1 ,0)

16t059 21,217 150,940 38 (0.5) 35 (0.5) 21 (0.4) 6 (0.2)

Television

60 and older 3,695 39,374 74 (1.1) 19 (0.8) 5 (0.4) 2 (0.3)

16t059 21,224 150,975 65 (0.6) 25 (0.5) 9 (0.3) 2 (0.2)

Family members

60 and older 3,686 39,288 20 (0.8) 40 (1 .0) 28 (0.8) 13 (0.7)

16t059 21,215 150,937 23 (0.4) 45 (0.5)9 26 (0.4) 5 (0.2)

n = sample siz~ WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95°A certainty.

Source U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

Literacy proficiencies vary significantly by information source (table 4.10

and tables B4. 1 and B4.2 in Appendix B). The average literacy scores of older

persons who rely heavily on television for information are significantly lower

than the scores of those who rely heavily on newspapers, although the

proficiencies of both groups tend to fall in the Level 2 range. For example, the

average prose score of older adults who get a lot of information from television

is 236, compared with 253 for those who get a lot of information from

newspapers. The literacy skills of older individuals who rely on magazines a

great deal are similar to those of their peers who depend on newspapers to a

similar extent (about 250 on the prose scale, for example). The average scores

of older adults who rely heavily on radio for their information are similar to

those of their peers who rely heavily on television (for example, about 235 on

the prose scale). Older adults who rely on family members a lot have lower

●

●

●

Chapter 4......8 9
,.

~ Table 4.IO

FJ

/11 Kk- 4:w- Average prose literacy proficiencies of adults,

by reliance on various sources of information and by age

Source of

information/

age

Newspapers

60 and older

16t059

Magazines

60 and older

16t059

Radio

60 and older

16t059

Television

60 and older

16t059

Family members

60 and older

16t059

Average proficiencies

WGT N

n (/1 000) A lot Some Little None

3,693 39,383

21,231 151,022

3,684 39,266

21,220 150,914

3,692 39,323

21,217 150,940

3,695 39,374

21,224 150,975

3,686 39,288

21,215 150,937

253 (1.7)

294 (0.9)

252 (3.0)

293 (1 .5)

231 (2.5)

278 (0.9)

236 (1 .7)

276 (0.7)

226 (3.3)

273 (1 .4)

240 (2.4)

283 (1 .0)

255 (2.1)

292 (0.8)

247 (2.7)

289 (1 .0)

251 (3.1)

295 (1 .2)

246 (2.4)

288 (0.8)

208 (4.2) 175 ( 4.6)

269 (1 .3) 221 ( 3.0)

239 (3.1) 195 ( 3.4)

282 (1 .2) 234 ( 1.7)

247 (2.8) 223 ( 3.2)

283 (1 .3) 259 ( 3.1)

230 (8.0)! 185 (17.7)!

287 (2.3) 292 ( 5.9)

245 (2.5) 213 ( 4.4)

286 (1 .4) 244 ( 2.7)

.

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95°A certainty.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

literacy proficiencies, on average, than those who rely on other sources to this

extent.

Literacy proficiencies also vary according to the amount of reliance on

each particular source. For older adults, there is a step-by-step decrease in

average scores on the three literacy scales as the amount of reliance on

newspapers also decreases. On the prose scale, for example, adults age 60 and

older who get a lot of information from newspapers have an average score of

254, compared with 242 for those who get some information, 200 for those who

get a little, and 154 for those who get none.

For magazines there is also a decrease in proficiency as the amount of

information decreases, except that there is no significant difference in

performance between those who get some and those who get a lot of

information from this source.

●

● ✝

90 . . . . . . Chapter 4
For ]Ioll-plint sources, the patterns are different. The litemm

proficiencies of older tldults ivho get solne or a little of their infonl]i~tioll froltl

r:~di(] or f:unily lnelnbers are higher thiul the proficiencies of tl]ose \\’ho get ii

lot of information from either of these sources: but tl~ell proficiencies decline

ag;lin for older adults who get none of their information from these sources. 111

fact, on each literacy scale, older adults who get a lot of their information frmn

radio and those who get none performed comparably. older adults who get

some of their information from television tended to outscore those \vho get a

lot of information from this source

AS seen with other activities, the proficiencies of the vou]lger IX)puliltiol 1

are consistently higher than those of the older group, regardless of the

information source and the extent to which that so~rce is relied upon.

Television Viewing

Overall, older adults reported more television viewing than adults under age 60

(table 4.11 ). Forty-four percent of older adults said that they gener:dly wiitch

four or more hours of television a day, compared with 29 percent of the under60 age group. While 13 percent of adults age 60 and older reported watching

no more than an hour of television a day, nearly one-quarter (23 percent) of

those under age 60 watch this amount,

~—. .— Table 4.11

F%lllll

-/iN=-

Am!l! ●> Percentages of adults, by average amount of

daily television viewing and by age

Age

, 60 and older

I

16t059

Row percentages

WGT N Otol 2t03 4 or more

n (/1 000) hour hours hours

3,698 39,419 13 (0.7) 43 (1.0) 44 (0.9)

21,236 151,052 23 (0.5) 48 (0.5) 29 (0.6)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 950/. certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

.

.

●

Ch:tpter4. . . ...9 1
Higher- literacy proficiencies are related to less tele~ision viewing among

older persons (table 4.12). Among those who watch four or Inf)re hours ii cloy,

average scores on the prose and quantit:ltive sc:des are :11.) out 225, the dividing

line between Levels 1 and 2. On the document scale, the nverxge score of older

adults who watch this much television is 216. Among those who watch less than

four hours a day, aver:~ge proficiencies are near the mid-range of Level 2

(except on the document scale), and thus are significantly higher than those of

adults who watch more television. Although the literacy proficiencies of older

adults who watch two to three hours of television a day appear to be slightly

higher than those of their peers who watch less than that, these diffel-ences are

not statistically significant.

The greatest difference between the literacy skills of older and younger

persons is found among those who spend relatively little time watching

television. For example, the avernge prose score of older adults who watch one

hour or less of television a day (24o) is 60 points below that of younger adults

(3oo) who watch this amount. On the other hand, the average prose score of

older adults who watch four or more hours a day (228) is 34 points below that

of the younger age group (262). .

~ Table 4.12

h

AAAKS!W l:XW Average literacy proficiencies of adults, by average

amount of daily television viewing and by age

Average proficiencies Age/

literacy scale WGT N Otol 2t03 4 or more

n (/1 000) hour hours hours

60 and older 3,698 39,419

Prose 240 (4.8) 247 (2.1 ) 228 (2.2)

Document 226 (4.3) 232 (2.3)

Quantitative

216 (2.1)

238 (5.7) 244 (2.4) 226 (2.6)

16 to 59 21,236 151,052.

Prose 300 (1.5) 285 (0.8) 262 (0.9)

Document 293 (1.7) 282 (0.9) 259 (0.9)

Quantitative 299 (1.6) 286 (0.8) 257 (0,9)

n = sample size: WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true- population’

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

●

● “

92 . . . . . . Chapter 4
I >.

Older adults were asked how often they engage in various literacy activities for

their personal use, such as reading letters or memos; reports, articles,

magazines, or journals; manuals or reference books, including catalogs;

directions or instructions; diagrams; and bills, invoices, spreadsheets, or budget

tables, The most common personal literacy activity is using arithmetic, a task

performed often by 65 percent of the older population (table 4.13). On the

other hand, older adults were far less likely to report that they often read

diagrams (4 percent) and write reports (6 percent). A greater percentage of

younger than older adults reported doing all of the activities often, with the

exception of reading directions.

Within the older population there is a positive relationship, regardless of

the type of literacy activity, between the frequency of engaging in the activity

and demonstrated proficiency (table 4.14 and tables B4.3 and B4.4 in Appendix

B), T~ically, either often or occasional performance of a particular activity is

related to average performance in Level 2, while rarely performing a task is

characterized by average proficiency in Level 1.

The average prose proficiencies of older adults Who often read letters,

reports, and manuals are higher than those of individuals who only occasionally

engage in these activities. For all other personal literacy activities, the

proficiencies of older adults who engage in them often or occasionally are

higher than those of adults who engage in them rarely.

Comparing older and younger persons yields results consistent with those

discussed elsewhere in this report. For each literacy activity and frequency

category, younger adults performed consistently better in the assessment (on

average) than older adults. The proficiency gaps between the two age groups

are remarkably consistent, regardless of the literacy scale, activity, or frequency.

●

✎

●

Chapter 4......9 3
- Table 4.13

h

-zAi=- A:wl Percentages of adults, by frequency of

personal literacy activities and by age

Type of

use and material/

age group

Row percentages

WGT N

r-l (/1 000) Often Occasionally Never

Read:

Letters, memos

60 and older

16t059

Reports

60 and older

16t059

Manuals

60 and older

16t059

Directions

60 and older

16t059

Diagrams

60 and older

16t059

Bills, invoices

60 and older

16t059

3,706

22,353

39,366

151,714

41 (0.9) 15 (0.7)

47 (0.6) 14 (0.4)

44 (1.1)

39 (0.6)

3,708

22,343

39,386

151,656

40 (1.1) 16 (0.7)

45 (0.6) 20 (0.3)

44 (1.1)

35 (0.5)

3,704

22,327

39,333

151,533

21 (1.1) 15 (0.8)

31 (0.5) 20 (0.5)

64 (1.1)

48 (0.6)

3,705

22,312

39,349

151,416

41 (1 .2) 16 (0.8)

40 (0.5) 19 (0.5)

43 (1 .3)

41 (0.5)

3,688

22,295

39,139

151,275

4 (0.4) 5 (0.4)

12 (0.3) - -8 (0.2)

91 (0.5)

80 (0.3)

3,706

22,312

39,350

151,299

29 (1 .0) 19 (0.8)

44 (0.5) 22 (0.3)

53 (1 .0)

34 (0.4)

write

Letters

60 and older

16t059

Reports

60 and older

16t059

Forms

60 and older

16t059

3,693 39,361

21,214 150,896

28 (0.9)

36 (0.5)

15 (0.8)

18 (0.3)

57 (1 .2)

46 (0.5)

3,684 39,290

21,194 150,773

6 (0.5)

13 (0,4)

6 (0.5)

11 (0.3)

88 (0.8)

76 (0.5)

3,690 39,326

21,208 150,839

19 (0.9)

31 (0.4)

17 (0.9)

27 (0.4)

65 (1 .0)

43 (0.4)

Use arithmetic

60 and older

16t059

3,674 39,148

21,209 150,918

65 (1 .2)

82 (0.4)

10 (0.9)

8 (0.3)

25 (1 .0)

10 (0.3)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95°/0 certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

.

94 . . . . . . Chapter 4
.

- Table 4.I4

FIJI

AAILLIW

~:~~ Average literacy proficiencies of adults, by frequency

of personal use of reading materials and by age

Literacy scalel Average proficiencies

type of material/

age group WGT N

n (/1 000) Often Occasionally Never

Prose

Letters, memos

60 and older 3,706 39,366 254 (1 .9) 240 (3.0) 221 (2.5)

16t059 22,353 151,714 294 (0.8) 284 (1 .2) 266 (1.1)

Reports

60 and older 3,708 39,386 262 (2.1) 245 (3.4) 213 (2.4)

16t059 22,343 151,656 301 (0.8) 286 (1 .3) 255 (1 .2)

Manuals

60 and older 3,704 39,333 266 (3.2) 250 (3.9) 226 (1 .9)

16t059 22,327 151,533 296 (0.9) 292 (1 .2) 268 (0.9)

Directions

60 and older 3,705 39,349 244 (1 .9) 250 (3.3) 227 (2.6)

16t059 22,312 151,416 291 (1 .0) 292 (1 .3) 268 (1 .0)

Document

Manuals

.-

60 and older 3,704 39,333 249 (3.2) 239 (2.8) 213 (1.9)

16t059 22,327 151,533 292 (0.9) 289 (1 .2) 264 (1 .0)

Directions

60 and older 3,705 39,349 231 (2.0) 235 (2.6) 214 (2.7)

16t059 22,312 151,416 287 (0.9) 286 (1 .2) 265 (1 .0)

Diagrams

60 and older 3,688 39,139 258 (6.2)! 250 (5.9)! 222 (1 .6)

16t059 22,295 151,275 293 (1 .7) 295 (1 .8) 274 (0.7)

Bills, invoices

60 and older 3,706 39,350 245 (2.2) 239 (2.9) 208 (2.4)

16t059 22,312 151,299 291 (0.8) 285 (1 .2) 258 (1 .2)

Quantitative

Diagrams

60 and older 3,688 39,139 272 (6.4)! 272 (7.1)! 232 (2.1)

16t059 22,295 151,275 297 (2.0) 299 (2.0) 276 (0.7)

Bills, invoices

60 and older 3,706 39,350 259 (3.2) 254 (4.2) 217 (3.2)

16t059 22,312 151,299 294 (0.8) 288 (1 .2) 258 (1.1)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95°A certainty.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult

1992.

Literacy Survey,

b

●

●

Chapter 4......9 5
Older adults who reported that they had held a paying job within the past three

years were asked how often they engaged in certain literacy-related activities in

their current or most recent job. These acti\tities include reading letters or

memos, reports or articles, manuals or reference books, directions, diagrams or

schematics, and bills or invoices; writing letters, memos, or reports; filling in

forms; and using arithmetic.

Employed persons age 60 and older reported having performed a host of

literacy tasks on the job, although with not quite the same frequency as

younger persons (table 4.15). Younger workers are slightly more likely to

perform these tasks often, with the exception of reading reports. The most

commonly performed tasks by both populations are using arithmetic (74

percent of the older and 82 percent of the younger population) and reading

job-related letters and memos (60 and 68 percent, respectively).

Because the sample of older workers is small, some of the proficiency data

should be interpreted with caution (table 4,16 and tables B4.5 and B4.6 in

Appendix B). Nevertheless, it is possible to make some comparisons. Older

adults who often engage in work-related literacy- activi~ies have higher average

proficiencies than those who rarely engage in these activities (except for

reading directions). The prose proficiencies of older adults who reported often

reading letters, reports, and manuals are, on average, in the Level 3 range, and

the quantitative proficiencies of older adults who often read diagrams and bills

also are in this range. Even the scores of older adults who rarely read any of

these materials on the job are, on average, in Level 2.

As reported in Chapter 3, older persons who were employed tended to

have higher average literacy scores than those who were not. The results shown

here are consistent with that finding. Although younger persons again

demonstrated higher average literacy proficiencies than their older

counterparts, the differences in performance between older and younger

persons are smaller among those who engaged in various work-related literacy

activities than they are in the population as a whole.

●

● ☛

96 . . . . . . Chapter 4
>

~ Table 4.15

hl

/LAL\\-

~:~~ Percentages of adults, by frequency of

work-related literacy activities and by age

Type of Row percentages

use and material/

age group WGT N

n (/1 000) Often Occasionally Never

Read:

Letters, memos

60 and older 1,390 12,996 60 (1 .7) 9 (0.9) 32 (1 .8)

16t059 18,514 133,161 68 (0.5) 8 (0.3) 24 (0.5)

Reports

60 and older 1,387 12,967 46 (1 .8) 11 (1.1) 43 (1 .9)

16t059 18,511 133,114 48 (0.5) ‘ 12 (0.3) 40 (0.5)

Manuals

60 and older 1,390 12,996 41 (1 .9) 11 (1 .2) 49 (1 .8)

16t059 18,508 133,161 49 (0.5) 12 (0.4) 40 (0.6)

Directions

60 and older 1,389 12,990 29 (1 .7) 8 (0.9) 62 (1 .5)

16t059 18,491 133,003 33 (0.4) 9 (0.3) 58 (0.5)

Diagrams

60 and older 1,388 12,972 23 (1 .4J 6 (0.8) 71 (1 .4)

16t059 18,479 132,882 30 (0.4) - 10 (0.3) 60 (0.5)

Bills, invoices

60 and older 1,389 12,992 36 (1 .5) 10 (1.0) 54 (1 .5)

16t059 18,501 133.082 41 (0.6) 10 (0.4) 49 (0.6)

Write

Letters

60 and older 1,389 12,991 49 (1 .9) 9 (1 .2) 42 (1 .7)

16t059 18,486 132,993 54 (0.5) 8 (0.3) 38 (0.5)

Reports

60 and older 1,389 12,991 49 (1 .9) 9 (1 .2) 42 (1 .7)

16t059 18,486 132,993 54 (0.5) 8 (0.3) 38 (0.5)

Forms

60 and older 1,389 12,991 38 (2.0) 9 (0.8) 53 (1 .9)

16t059 18,482 132,972 45 (0.6) 10 (0.3) 45 (0.6)

Use arithmetic

60 and older 1,390 12,952 74 (1 .2) 5 (0.9) 21 (1 .2)

16t059 18,508 133,210 82 (0.4) 4 (0.2) 13 (0.4)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with gs~o certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Na~onal Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

●

s

●

Chapte r 4......9 7
~ Table 4.16

I

h

/A4L\\-

~:~%~ Average literacy proficiencies of adults, by frequency

of various work-related literacy activities and by age

Literacy scalel Average proficiencies

type of material/

age group WGT N

n (/1 000) Often Occasionally Never

‘rose

Letters, memos

60 and older 1,390 12,996 276 ( 2.7) 264 ( 5.8)! 231 ( 4.3)

16t059 18,514 133,161 298 ( 0.7) 283 ( 2.1) 255 ( 1.3)

Reports

60 and older 1,387 12,967 282 ( 3.2) 257 ( 8.3)! 240 ( 3.9)

16t059 18,511 133,114 303 ( 0.9) 294 ( 1 .9) 264 ( 1.1)

Manuals

60 and older 1,390 12,996 282 ( 3.8) 258 ( 7.2)! 244 ( 3.3)

16t059 18,508 133,161 301 ( 0.9) 293 ( 1.7) 267 ( 1.1)

Directions

60 and older 1,389 12,990 263 ( 4.1) 263 ( 8.5)! 260 ( 3.0)

16t059 18,491 133,003 291 ( 1.1) 294 ( 2.5) 282 ( 0.9)

bcument

Manuals .

60 and older 1,390 12,996 264 ( 3.1) 252 ( 6.4)! 232 ( 3.6)

16t059 18,508 133,161 297 ( 0.9) 290 ( 1.7) 263 ( 1.2)

Directions

60 and older 1,389 12,990 250 ( 3.8) 256 ( 7.3)! 244 ( 3.1)

16t059 18,491 133,003 288 ( 1.1) 291 ( 1.9) 278 ( 0.8)

Diagrams

60 and older 1,388 12,972 269 ( 4.4) 256 (1 0.7)! 240 ( 2.2)

16t059 18,479 132,882 297 ( 1.0) 300 ( 2.0) 273 ( 0.9)

Bills, invoices

60 and older 1,389 12,992 259 ( 3.0) 246 ( 6.9)! 239 ( 3.0)

16t059 18,501 133,082 295 ( 0.8) 287 ( 1.9) 272 ( 1.2)

Quantitative

Diagrams

60 and older 1,388 12,972 288 ( 4.8) 283 (1 1.5)! 258 ( 2.7)

16t059 18,479 132,882 302 ( 1.2) 306 ( 2.0) 275 ( 0.8)

Bills, invoices

60 and older 1,389 12,992 282 ( 3.7) 273 ( 8.1)! 255 ( 3.1)

16t059 18,501 133,082 300 ( 0.9) 292 ( 1.8) 273 ( 1.0)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up

to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. The true population

values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95% certainty,

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

.

98 . . . . . . Chapter 4
. . ..-.

.’

Literacy skills va~ significantly within and between age cohorts according to

the manner in ~vhich various types of literacy skills were acquired. In general,

learning a particular literacy skill at school or at ~vork is associated ~vith higher

literacy proficiencies, compared with learning it at home or in the community.

This pattern holds regardless of the age group, ~~tith ?rounger adults consistently

outperforming their older counterparts. There are some differences across the

age groups in the places where particular skills \vere learned, but most adults in

each age group learned their literacy skills at school.

Fifty-nine percent of older adults reported never using a library, compared

with 28 percent of adults under 60. Adults age 60 and older who said they use

the library demonstrate higher average literacy proficiencies than those who do

not.

Older adults who read a newspaper in English at least a few times a week

or who read some magazines on a regular basis tend to have higher literacy

scores than those who do not engage in these reading activities.

Adults who watched less than four hours of television a day outperformed

those who watched more. Frequent televisio~ view~ng was more prevalent

among older adults than among adults under 60.

Older adults who engaged in various literacy activities often, either on the

job or for personal use, performed better in the assessment than those who

engaged in these activities infrequently.

Across all of the literacy activities reported on in this chapter, younger

adults who often engaged in each activity demonstrated higher average literacy

proficiencies than their counterparts in the older adult population. There area

few activities for which the gap in performance between the two age groups

narrows, but it never disappears. The differences in average literacy scores

between older and younger adults are somewhat smaller among those who

reported watching four or more hours of television a day, never reading a

newspaper, and engaging in various job-r&ted literacy practices.

●

●

●

Chapter 4......9 9
—>

100 !..... Chapter 4
APPENDIX A

Intep-eting the Literacy Scales”

Building on the two earlier literacy surveys conducted by Educational

Testing Service (ETS), the performance results from the National Adult

Literacy Survey are reported on three literacy scales — prose, document, and

quantitative — rather than on a single conglomerate scale. Each of the three

literacy scales ranges from O to 500.

The purpose of this section of the report is to give meaning to the literacy

scales — or, more specifically, to interpret the numerical scores that are used to

represent adults’ proficiencies on these scales. Toward this end, the section

begins with a brief summmy of the task development process and of the way

in which the literacy levels are defined. A detailed description of the prose,

document, and quantitative scales is then provided. The five levels on each scale

are defined, and the skills and strategies needed to successfully perform the tasks

in each level are discussed. Sample tasks are presented to illustrate the types of

materials and task demands that characterize the levels on each scale. The section

ends with a brief summary of the probabilities of successful performance on tasks

within each level for individuals who demonstrated different proficiencies.

Building the Literacy Tasks

The literacy scales make it possible not only to summarize the literacy

proficiencies of the total population and of various subpopulations, but also to

determine the relative difficulty of the literacy tasks administered in the survey.

That is, just as an individual receives a score according to his or her performance

on the assessment tasks, each task receives a value according to its difficulty as

determined by the performance of the adults who participated in the survey.

Previous research conducted at ETS has shown that the difficulty of a literacy

task, and therefore its placement on a particular literacy scale, is determined by

*This chapter originally appeared in the first report on the National Adult Literacy Survey, L S, Kirsch,

A. Jungebhst, L. Jenkins, and A. Kolstad. (September 1993). Aduh .Memcy In America: A First Look at the

Resdt.s of the Natwnd A&h Literacy Sutwy. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

9

●

●

Appendix A . . . . ..lOl
-.

.

three factors: the structure or linguistic format of the material, the content and/

or the context from which it is selected, and the nature of the task, or what the

individual is asked to do with the material.

L\4aten’al.s, The materials selected for inclusion in NALS reflect a

variety of linguistic formats that adults encounter in their daily activities, Most of

the prose materials used in the survey are expository — that is, they describe,

define, or inform — since most of the prose that adults read is expositon in

nature; however, narratives and poetry are included, as well. The prose materials

include an array of linguistic structures, ranging from texts that are highly

organized both topically and visually to those that are loosely organized. They

also include texts of varying lengths, from multiple-page magazine selections to

short newspaper articles. All prose materials included in,the survey were

reproduced in their original format.

The document materials represent a wide variety of structures, which are

characterized as tables, charts and graphs, forms, and maps, among other

categories. Tables include matrix documents in which information is arrayed in

rows and columns — for example, bus or airplane schedules, lists, or tables of

numbers. Documents categorized as charts and graphs i~lude pie charts, bar

graphs, and line graphs. Forms are documents that require information to be

filled in, while other structures include such materials as advertisements and

coupons.

The quantitative tasks require the reader to perform arithmetic operations

using numbers that are embedded in print. Since there are no materials that are

unique to quantitative tasks, these tasks were based on prose materials and

documents. Most quantitative tasks were, in fact, based on document structures.

Content andor Contexts. Adults do not read printed or written

materials in a vacuum. Rather, they read within a particular context or for a

particular purpose. Accordingly, the NALS materials represent a variety of

contexts and contents. Six such areas were identified: home and family; health

and safety community and citizenship; consumer economics; work; and leisure

and recreation.

In selecting materials to represent these areas, efforts were made to include

as broad a range as possible, as well as to select universally relevant contexts and

contents. This was to ensure that the materials would not be so specialized as to

be familiar only to certain groups. In this way, disadvantages for individuals with

limited background knowledge were minimized.

Types of7’’ks. After the materials were selected, tasks were developed to

accompany the materials. These tasks were designed to simulate the ways in

which people use various types of materials and to require different strategies

for successful task completion. For both the prose and document scales, the

102 . . . . . . Appendix A
tasks can be organized into three major categories: locating, i)jtegrati)~g, and

generating information. In the locating tasks, readers are asked to match

informtition that is given in a question or directive \vith either literal or

synonymous information in the text or document. Integrating tasks require the

reader to incorporate two or more pieces of information located in different

parts of the text or document. Generating tasks require readers not only to

process information located in different parts of the material, but also to go

beyond that information by drawing on their knowledge about a subject or by

making broad text-based inferences,

Quantitative tasks require readers to perform arithmetic operations —

addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division — either singly or in

combination. In some tasks, the type of operation that must be performed is

obvious from the wording of the question, while in other tasks the readers must

infer which operation is to be performed. Similarly, the numbers that are required

to perform the operation can, in some cases, be easily identified, while in others,

the numbers that are needed are embedded in text. Moreover, some quantitative

tasks require the reader to explain how the problem would be solved rather than

perform the calculation, and on some tasks the use ofa simple four-function

calculator is required.

Defining the Literacy Levels

The relative difficulty of the assessment tasks reflects the interactions among

the various task characteristics described here. As shown in Figure 1 in the

Introduction to this report, the score point assigned to each task is the point at

which the individuals with that proficiency score have a high probability of

responding correctly. In this survey, an 80 percent probability of correct response

was the criterion used, While some tasks were at the very low end

of the scale and some at the very high end, most had difficulty values in the

200 to 400 range.

By assigning scale values to both the individuals and tasks, it is possible to

see how well adults with varying proficiencies performed on tasks of varying

difficulty. While individuals with low proficiency tend to perform well on tasks

with difficulty values equivalent to or below their level of proficiency, they are

less likely to succeed on tasks with higher difficulty values. This does not mean

that individuals with low proficiency can never succeed on more difficult literacy

tasks — that is, on tasks whose difficulty values are higher than their

proficiencies. They may do so some of the time. Rather, it means that their

probability of success is not as high. In other words, the more difficult the task

relative to their proficiency, the lower their likelihood of responding correctly.

●

Append& A . . . ...103
-.

The response probabilities for two tasks on the prose scale are displayed in

Figure 3.1. The difficulty of the first task is measured at the 250 point on the

scale, and the second task is at the 350 point. This means that an individual

would have to score at the 250 point on the prose scale to have an 80 percent

chance (that is, a .8 probability) of responding correctly to Task 1. Adults scoring

at the 200 point on the prose scale have only a 40 percent chance of responding

correctly to this task, whereas those scoring at the.300 point and above would be

expected to rarely miss this task and others like it.

In contrast, an individual would need to score at the 350 point to have an 80

percent chance of responding correctly to Task 2. While individuals performing

at the 250 point would have an 80 percent chance of success on the first task,

their probability of answering the more difficult second.task correctly is only 20

percent. An individual scoring at the 300 point is likely to succeed on this more

difficult task only half the time.

Figure A.1

Probabilities of Successful Performance on Two Prose Tasks by Individuals at

Selected Points on the Prose Scale

1.0-

$ 0.9-

s

g 0.7- ,/,

n.

: 0.6-

: 0.5-

: 0.4-

: 0.3-

~

~ 0.2-

0.0 h -+ -o-~[;;

150 200 250 300 350 400

Adults’ Average Prose Proficiency

— Task 1

------ Task2

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

.

.

●

104 . . . . . .

An analogy may help clarify the information presented for the two prose

tasks. The relationship between task difficulty and individual proficiency is much

like the high jump event in track and field, in which an athlete tries to jump over

a bar that is placed at increasing heights. Each high jumper has a height at which

he or she is proficient. That is, he or she is able to clear the bar at that height with

a high probability of success, and can clear the bar at lower levels almost every

Appendix A
time. When the bar is higher than their level of proficiency, however, they can be

expected to have a much lower chance of clearing it successfully.

Once the literacy tasks are placed on their respective scales, using the

criterion described here, it is possible to see how well the interactions among the

task characteristics explain the placement of various tasks along the scales. * In

investigating the progression of task characteristics across the scales, certain

questions are of interest. Do tasks with similar difficulty values (that is, with

difflcuhy values near one another on a scale) have certain shared characteristics?

Do these characteristics differ in systematic ways from tasks in either higher or

lower levels of diilculty? Analyses of the interactions between the materials read

and the tasks based on these materials reveal that an ordered set of informationprocessing skills appears to be called into play to perform the range of tasks along

each scale.

To capture this ordering, each scale was divided into five levels that reflect

the progression of information-processing skills and strategies: Level 1 (O to

225), Level 2 (226 to 275), Level 3 (276 to 325), Level 4 (326 to 375), and

Level 5 (376 to 500). These levels were determined not as a result of any

statistical property of the scales, but rather as ~ resufi of shifts in the skills and

strategies required to succeed on various tasks along the scales, from simple to

complex.

The remaining pages of this section describe each scale in terms of the

nature of the task demands at each of the five levels. After a brief introduction to

each scale, sample tasks in each level are presented and the factors contributing

to their difflcul~ are discussed. The aim of these discussions is to give meaning

to the scales and to facilitate interpretation of the results provided in the first and

second sections of this report.

interpreting the Literacy Levels

Prose Literacy

The ability to understand and use information contained in various kinds of

textual material is an important aspect of literacy. Most of the prose materials

administered in this assessment were expository — that is, they inform, define, or

desctibe — since these constitute much of the prose that adults read. Some

narrative texts and poems were included, as well. The prose materials were

drawn from newspapers, magazines, books, brochures, and pamphlets and

reprinted in their entirety, using the typography and layout of the original source.

AS a result, the materials vary widely in length, density of information, and the

ll.S. Kirsch and P.B. Mosenthal. (1990). “Exploring Document Literacy Variable Underlying the Performance

of Young Adults”. Reading Research Quarterly, 25. pp. 5-30.

●

●

●
use of structured or organizational aids such as section or paragraph headings,

italic or bold face ~pe, and bullets,

Each prose selection Jvas accompanied by one or more questions or

directi~es which asked the reader to perfhrm specific tasks. These tasks represent

three major aspects of information-processing: locating, integrating, and

generating. Locating tasks require the reader to find information in the text basecl

on conditions or features specified in the question or directive. The match nuw be

literal or synorqmous, or the reader may need to make a text-based inference in

order to perform the task successfully Integrating tasks ask the reader to compare

or contrast two or more pieces of information from the text. In some cases the

information can be found in a single paragraph, while in others it appears in

different paragraphs or sections. In the generating tasks,’readers must produce a

written response by making text-based inferences or drawing on their own

background knowledge.

In all, the prose literacy scale includes 41 tasks with difficulty values

ranging from 149 to 468. It is important to remember that the locating,

generating, and integrating tasks extend over a range of difficulty as a result of

.

interactions with other variables including:

@ the nurnher of categories or features of information that the reader must

process

~ the number of categories or features of information in the text that can distract

the reader, or that may seem plausible but are incorrect

~ the degree to \vhi& information given in the question is obviously related to

the information contained in the text

a the length and density of the text

The five levels of prose literacy are defined, and sample tasks provided, in

the following pages.

Prose Level 1 Scale range: O to 225

Most of the tasks in this level require the reader to read relatively

short text to locate a single piece of information which is identical to

or synonymous with the information given in the question or

directive. Ifplausihle but incorrect information is present in the text,

it tends not to be located near the correct information.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 198

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 21%

●

☛☛

106
Tasks in this level require the reader to locate and match a single piece of’

information in the text. TWica]]\’ the match between the question or directi~’e and

the text is literal, although sometimes synonymous matches maybe necessary.

The text is usually brief or has organizational aids .Nlch as paragmpll headinss or

italics that suggest where in the text the reader should search for the specified

information. The word or phrase to be matched appears only once in the text.

One task in Level 1 with a difficulty value of 208 asks respondents to read a

newspaper article about a marathon swimmer and to underline the sentence that

tells what she ate during a swim. Only one reference to food is contained in the

passage, and it does not use the word “ate.” Rather, the article says the swimmer

“kept up her strength with banana and honey sandwiches, hot chocolate, lots of

water and granola bars.” The reader must match the word “ate” in the directive

with the only reference to foods in the article.

Underline the sentence that tells what Ms. Chanin

ate during the swim, *

swimmer completes

Manhattan marathon

The Associated Press

NEW YORK—University of Maryland

senior Stacv Chanin on Wednesdav became

the first person to swim three 28-mile laps

around Manhattan.

Chanin, 23, of Virginia, climbed out of

the East River at 96th Street at 9:30 p.m.

She began the swim at noon on Tuesday,

A spokesman for the swimmer, Roy

Brunett, said Chanin had kept up her

strength with “banana and honey”

sandwiches, hot chocolate, lots of water and

granola bars.”

Chanin has twice circled Manhattan

before and trained for the new feat by

swimming about 28.4 miles a week. The

Yonkers native has competed as a swimmer

since sbe was 15 and hoped to persuade

ol,ympic authorities to add a long-distance

swimming event.

The Leukemia Society of America

solicited pledges for each mile she swam.

In July 1983. Julie Ridge became the first

person to swim around Manhattan twice.

With her three laps, Chanin came up just

short of Diana Nyads distance record, set

on a Florida-to-Cuba swim,

Reduced from original copy.

●

●

●
:.

pr{,sc, ;_ ~, ,,; .? . . . ..- Scale range: 226 to 275

Some tasks in this leoel require reader-s to locate a single piece of

information in the text; homeoec several (listractors or plausible but

incorrect pieces of information may be present, or low-level

inferences may be required Other tasks require the reader to

integrate two or more pieces of information or to compare and

contrast easily identifiable information based on a criterion provided

in the question or directive.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 259

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 27%

Like the tasks in Level 1, most of the tasks in this level ask the reader to

locate information. However, these tasks place more varied demands on the

reader. For example, they frequently require readers to match more than a single

piece of information in the text and to discount information that only partially

satisfies the question. If plausible but incomplete infom~ation is included in the

text, such distracters do not appear near the sentence or paragraph that contains

the correct answer. For example, a task based on the sports article reproduced

earlier asks the reader to identi$ the age at which the marathon swimmer began

to swim competitively. The article first provides the swimmer’s current age of 23,

which is a plausible but incorrect answer. The correct information, age 15, is

found toward the end of the article.

In addition to directing the reader to locate more than a single piece of

information in the text, low-level inferences based on the text maybe required to

respond correctly. Other tasks in Level 2 (226 to 275) require the reader to

identifj information that matches a given criterion. For example, in one task

with a difficulty value of 275, readers were asked to identify specifically what

was wrong with an appliance by choosing the most appropriate of four

statements describing its malfunction.

*

108 Appendix A
-.

A manufacturing companv provides its customers with the

following instructions for returning appliances for service:

when returning appliance for servicing, include a note telling as clearly and

as specifically as possible what is wrong with the appliance.

A repair person for the company receives four appliances with the

following notes attached. Circle the letter next to the note which

best follows the instructions supplied by the company.

The clock does not run

A

correctly on this clock

c

radio. I tried fixing it, but

I couldn’t.

Readers in this level may also be asked to infer a recurring theme. One

task with a difficulty value of 262 asks respondents to read a poem that uses

several metaphors to represent a single, familiar concept and to identi& its

theme. The repetitiveness and familiarity of the allusions appear to make this

“generating” task relatively easy.

●

✌

✌

lO9
. .

..r. .. i,,.,,:

., Scale range: 276 to 325

Treks in this level tend to require readers to make literal or

,synon ymous matches between the text and information given in the

task, or to make matches that require low-leuel inferences. Other tasks

ask readem to integrate information from dense or lengthy text that

contains no organizational aids such as headings. Readers may also

be asked to generate a response based on information that can be

easily identified in the text, Distracting information is present, but is

not located near the correct information.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 298

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 3290

\

One of the easier Level 3 tasks requires the reader to write a brief letter

explaining that an error has been made on a credit card bill. This task is at 280 on

the prose scale. Other tasks in this level require the reader to search fairly dense

text for information. Some of the tasks ask respondents to make a literal or

synonymous match on more than a single feature, while other tasks ask them to

integrate multiple pieces of information from a long passage that does not contain

organizational aids.

One of the more difficult Level 3 tasks (with a difficulty value of 316)

requires the reader to read a magazine article about an Asian-American woman

and to provide two facts that support an inference made from the text. The

question directs the reader to identifj what Ida Chen did to help resolve conflicts

due to discrimination.

List two things that Chen became involved in or has

done to help resolve conflicts due to discrimination.

—*.

●

110 . . . . . . Appendix A
IDA CHEN is the first Asian-American woman to

become a judge of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

She understands

discrimination because she

has experienced it herself.

Soft-spoken and eminently dignified,

Judge Ida Chen prefers hearing about a

new acquaintance rather than talking

about herself. She wants to know about

career plans, hopes, dreams, fears. She

gives unsolicited advice as well as

encouragement. She instills confidence.

Her father once hoped that she would

become a professor. And she would have

also made an outstanding social worker

or guidance counselor. The truth is that

Chen wears the caps of all these professions as a Family Court judge of the

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia

County, as a participant in public

advocacy for minorities, and as a

particularly sensitive, caring person.

She understands discrimination

because she has experienced it herself.

As an elementary school student, Chen

tried to join the local Brownie troop.

“You can’t be a member,” she was told.

“Only American girls are in the

Brownies.”

Originally intent upon a career as a

journalist, she selected Temple University because of its outstanding journalism department and affordable tuition.

Independence being a personal need, she

paid for her tuition by working for

Temple’s Department of Crimina l

Justice. There she had her first encounter

with the legal world and it turned her

career plans in a new direction — law

school.

Through meticulous planning, Chen

was able to earn her undergraduate

degree in two and a half years and she

continued to work three jobs. But when

she began her first semester as a Temple

law student in the fall of 1973, she was

barely able to stay awake. Her teacher

Lynne Abraham, now a Common Pleas

Court judge herself, couldn’t help but

notice Chen yawning in the back of the

class, and when she determined that this

student was not a party animal but a

workhorse, she arranged a teaching

assistant’s job for Chen on campus.

After graduating from Temple Law

School in 1976, Chen worked for the U.S.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission where she was a litigator on

behalf of plaintiffs who experienced

discrimination in the workplace, and

then moved on to become the first

Asian-American to serve on the

Philadelphia Commission on Human

Relations.

Appointed by Mayor Wilson Goode,

Chen worked with community leaders to

resolve racial and ethnic tensions and

also made time to contribute free legal

counsel to a variety of activist groups.

The “Help Wanted’ section of the

newspaper contained an entry that

aroused Chen’s curiosity — an ad for a

judge’s position. Her application resulted

in her sele~tion by a state judicial

committee to fill a seat in the state

court. And in July of 1988, she officially

became a judge of the Court of Common

Pleas. Running as both a Republican and

Democratic candidate, her position was

secured when she won her seat on the

bench at last November’s election.

At Family Court, Chen presides over

criminal and civil cases which include

adult sex crimes, domestic violence,

juvenile delinquency, custody, divorce

and support. Not a pretty picture.

Chen recalls her first day as judge,

hearing a juvenile dependency case — “It

was a horrifying experience. I broke

down because the cases were so depressing, ” she remembers.

Outside of the courtroom, Chen has

made a name for herself in resolving

interracial conflicts, while glorying in

her Chinese-American identity. In a 1986

incident involving the desecration of

Korean street signs in a Philadelphia

neighborhood, Chen called for a meeting

with the leaders of that community to

help resolve the conflict.

Chen’s interest in community

advocacy is not limited to Asian communities. She has been involved in Hispanic, Jewish and Black issues, and

because of her participation in the Ethnic

Affairs Committee of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, Chen was one

of 10 women nationwide selected to take

part in a mission to Israel.

With her recently won mandate to

judicate in the affairs of Pennsylvania’s

citizens, Chen has pledged to work

tirelessly to defend the rights of its

people and contribute to the improvement of human welfare. She would have

made a fabulous Brownie.

— Jessica Schultz

●

☛

✘

111
:> 1“4)>6’ , .L,’, <’i T Scale range: 326 to 3’75

These tasks require readens to peforrn nlultiple-feature matches and

to integrate or synthesize information from colnplex or lengthy

passages. More complex inferences are needed to peform

successfully. Conditional information is frequently present in tasks in

this level and must be taken into consideration by the reade~

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 352

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 17%

A prose task with a difficulty value of 328 requires the reader to synthesize

the repeated statements of an argument from a newspaper column in order to

generate a theme or organizing principle. In this instance, the supporting

statements are elaborated in different parts of a lengthy text.

A more challenging task (with a difficulty value of 359) directs the reader to

contrast the two opposing views stated in the newspaper feature reprinted here

that discusses the existence of technologies that can be us~d to produce more

fuel-efficient cars.

Contrast Dewey’s and Hanna’s views about the

existence of technologies that can be used to produce

more fuel-efficient cars while maintaining the size of

the cars.

●

112 . . . . . . Appendix A
*

.

.

. “.

+

+

CJ

Face-Offi Getting More Miles Per Gallon

Demand cars with

better gas mileage

By Robert Dewey

Guest columnist

WASHINGTON — Warning: Automakers are resurrecting their heavynretal dinosaurs, aka gas guzzlers.

Government reports show that average

new-car mileage has declined to 28.2 miles

per gallon — the 1986 level. lb reverse

this trend, Congress must significantly

increase existing gas-mileage standards.

More than half our Nobel laureates

and 700 members of the National Academy of Sciences recently called global

warming “the most serious environmental threat of the 21st century. ” In 1989,

oil imports climbed to a near-record 46%

of U.S. consumption. Increasing gas

mileage is the single biggest step we can

take to reduce oil imports and curb global

warming. Greater efficiency also lowers

our trade deficit (oil imports represent

40% of it) and decreases the need to drill

in pristine areas.

Bigger engines and bigger cars mean

bigger profits for automakers, who offer

us the products they want us to buy.

More than ever, Americans want products that have less of an environmental

impact. But with onfy a few fuel-efficient

cars to choose from, how do we find ones

that meet all our needs?

Government studies show automakers

have the technology to dramatically im.

prove gas mileage — while maintaining

the 1987 levels of comfort, performance

and size mix of vehicles. Automakers also

have the ability h make their products

safer. The cost of these improvements

wilf be offset by savings at the gas pump!

Cars can average 45 mpg and light

trucks 35 mpg primarily by utilizing engine and transmission technologies already on a few cars today. Further lmprovementa are possible by us]ng technologies like the two-stroke engine and

better aerod~amics that have been developed but not used.

When the current vehicle efficiency

standards were proposed in 1974, Ford

wrongly predicted that they “would require either all sub-Pinto-sized vehicles

or some mm of vekcles ranging from a

sub-subcompact to perhaps a Maverick, ”

At that time, Congress required a 100%

efficiency increase; raising gas mileage

to 45 mpg requires only a 60% increase.

Americans want comfortable, safe and

efficient cars. If automakers won’t prOvide them, Congress must mandate them

when it considers the issue this summer.

Let’s hope law-makers put the best minterest of the environment and the nation

ahead of the automakers’ lobbyists and

political action committees.

RG&rt Dewey u a come,-uooo. analyst for the Enw.

mnmental Actton Famdation.

Repnntid by Pt.r.wmion of USA WY.

Don’t demand end

to cars people want

By Thomas H, Hanna

Guest columnist

DETROIT — Do Americans look forward to the day when they’ll have b haul

groceries, shuttle the kids ta and from

school or take fannly vacations in compact

and subcompact cars?

I doubt it — which is why US. and

@ort carrnakers oppose the 40-milesPer-gallon to 45 mpg corporati average

kel economy mandates that some are

pu.hng in Congress, either to curb tailpipe

carbon diomde emissions because of alleged

global warming or for energy conservation.

Since the mid-1970s, automakers have

doubled the fleet average fuel economy of

new cars to 28 mpg — and further progress

will be made.

Compact and subcompact cars with

mileage of 40 mpg or better are now

available, yet they appeal to onfy 5% of

“~iVL&l;iaUS.fl*tav@ageof40

mpg tO 45 mpg, carrnakera would have to

sharply limit the availability of familyaize models and dramatically trim the size

and weight of most cm-s.

There simply are not magic technologies b meat such a standard,

Almost every car now sold in the USA

woutd have w be drastmally downsized,

and many would be obsolete.

& a result, Americans each year would

be unable to buy the vehicles most suited

for their needs: mid- and family-size

models, luxury automobiles, mini-vans,

smafl trucks and utillty vehlclea,

The fleet shd? to compacts and subcompacts could also force the closing of assembly planta, suppller firms and dealerships,

at a cost of thousands of U S jobs

Although a growrng number of scientists

are skeptical of global wanmng. the Issue

deserves thorough mtematlonal scientific

evaluation, not prem. Me unilateral U.S.

action.

Carbon diosrde emissions from U.S. vehicles total less than 2.5% of worldwrde

“greenhouse” gases. Even doubling today’s

corporate average fuel economy for U.S.

cars — if technically possible — woutd cut ~$

those gases about .5’%

Whatever the motivation — alleged

global war-nung or energy conservation —

the stakea are h]gh for millions of Anrericans and thousands of U.S. jobs in unrealistic corporate average fuel economy

mandates,

Thomas H Hanrm M prt-stdznt and chwf cxccuttue

OfiC#, of the Motor Veh, ck M,mufactuws Asmcm.

(ton of the [I.,(.+ States

Reprtnted by perrntssmn of (ISA lbdqv

Reduced from original copy,
-.

Two other tasks in Level 4 on the prose scale require the reader to draw

on background knowledge in responding to questions asked about two poems.

In one they are asked to generate an unfamiliar theme from a short poem

(difficulty value of 362), and in the other they are asked to compare two

metaphors (value of 374).

Prose Lmwl 5 Scale range: 376 to 500

Some tasks in this level require the reader to search for information in

dense text which contains a number of plausible distracters. Othem

ask readers to make high-level inferences or use specialized

background knowledge. Some tasks ask readers tQ contrast complex

information.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 423

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 3%

Two tasks in Level 5 require the reader to search40r information in dense

text containing several plausible distracters. One such task (difficulty value of

410) requires the respondent to read information about jury selection and service.

The question requires the reader to interpret information to identifj two ways in

which prospective jurors may be challenged.

Identi@ and summarize the two kinds of challenges

that attorneys use while selecting members of a jury.

.

.0

114 . . . . . . Appendix A
DO YOU HAVE

QUESTION: What is the new program for

scheduling jurors?

ANSWER: This is a new way of organizing

and scheduling jurors that is being introduced all over the country. The goals of

this program are to save money, increase

the number of citizens who are summoned

to serve and decrease the inconvenience

of serving.

The program means that instead of calling jurors for two weeks, jurors now serve

only one day, or for the length of one trial

if they are selected to hear a case. Jurors

who are not selected to hear a case are

excused at the end of the day, and their

obligations to serve as jurors are fulfilled

for three years. The average trial lasts

two days once testimony begins.

An important part of what is called the

One Day – One Trial program is the

“standby” juror. This is a person called to

the Courthouse if the number of cases to

be tried requires more jurors than originally estimated. Once called to the Courthouse, the standby becomes a “regular”

juror, and his or her service is complete at

the end of one day or one trial, the same

as everyone else.

Q. How was I summoned?

A. The basic source for names of eligible

jurors is the Driver’s License list which is

supplemented by the voter registration

list. Names are chosen from these combined lists by a computer in a completely

random manner.

Once in the Courthouse, jurors are

selected for a trial by this same computer

and random selection process.

Q. How is the Jury for a- particular trial

selected?

A. When a group of prospective jurors is

selected, more than the number needed

for a trial are called. Once this group has

been seated in the courtroom, either the

Judge or the attorneys ask questions.

This is called voir dire. The purpose of

questions asked during voir dire is to

>>

A QUESTION?

ensure that all of the jurors who are

selected to hear the case will be unbiased, objective and attentive.

In most cases, prospective jurors will be

asked to raise their hands when a particular question applies to them. Examples of

questions often asked are: Do you know

the Plaintiff, Defendant or the attorneys in

this case? Have you been involved in a

case similar to this one yourself? Where

the answer is yes, the jurors raising hands

may be asked additional questions, as

the purpose is to guarantee a fair trial for

all parties. When an attorney believes

that there is a legal reason to excuse a

juror, he or she will challenge the juror for

cause. Unless both attorneys agree that

the juror should be excused, the Judge

must either sustain or override the challenge.

After all challenges for cause have been

ruled upon; the attorneys will select the

trial jury from those who remain by exercising peremptory challenges. Unlike

challenges for cause, no reason need be

given for excusing a juror by peremptory

challenge. Attorneys usually exercise

these challenges by taking turns striking

names from a list until both are satisfied

with the jurors at the top of the list or until

they use up the number of challenges

allowed. Challenged jurors and any extra

jurors will then be excused and asked to

return to the jury selection room.

Jurors should not feel rejected or insulted

if they are excused for cause by the Court

or peremptorily challenged by one of the

attorneys. The voir dire process and

challenging of jurors is simply our judicial

system’s way of guaranteeing both parties to a lawsuit a fair trial.

Q. Am I guaranteed to serve on a jury?

A. Not all jurors who are summoned actually

hear a case. Sometimes all the Judges

are still working on trials from the previous day, and no new jurors are chosen.

Normally, however, some new cases begin

every day. Sometimes jurors are challenged and not selected.

.

A di A 115
A somewhat more demanding task (difficulty vaJue of 423) involves the

magazine article on Ida Chen reproduced earlier. This more challenging task

requires the reader to explain the phrase “recently won mandate” used at the end

of the text. To explain this phrase, the reader needs to understand the concept of a

political mandate as it applies to Ida Chen and the way she is portrayed in this

article.

Document Literacy

Another important aspect of being literate in modem society is having the

knowledge and skills needed to process information from documents. We often

encounter tables, schedules, charts, graphs, maps, and f~rrns in everyday life,

both at home and at work. In fact, researchers have found that many of us spend

more time reading documents than any other type of material.z The ability to

locate and use information from documents is therefore essential.

Success in processing documents appears to depend at least in part on the

ability to locate information in complex arrays and to use this information in the

appropriate ways. Procedural knowledge may be needed.to transfer information

from one source or document to another, as is necessary in completing

applications or order forms.

The NALS document literacy scale contains 81 tasks with difficulty values

that range from 69 to 396 on the scale, By examining tasks associated with

various proficiency levels, we can identi~ characteristics that appear to make

certain types of document tasks more or less difficult for readers. Questions

and directives associated with these tasks are basically of four types: locating,

cycling, integrating, and generating. Locating tasks require the readers to

match one or more features of information stated in the question to either

identical or synonymous information given in the document. Cycling tasks

require the reader to locate and match one or more features, but differ in that they

require the reader to engage in a series of feature matches to satis$ conditions

given in the question. The integrating tasks typically require the reader to

compare and contrast information in adjacent parts of the document. In the

generating tasks, readers must produce a written response by processing

information found in the document and also making text-based inferences or

drawing on their own background knowledge.

2 J.T. Guthrie, M. Seifert, and 1.S. Kirsch. (1966), “Effects of Education, Occupation, and Setting on Reading

Practices.’” American Educational Research ]ournal, 23. pp. 151-160,

●

● ☛

116
.

As with the prose tasks, each type of question or directive extends over a

range of difficulty as a result of interactions among several variables or task

characteristics that include:

● the number of categories or features of information in the question that the

reader has to processor match

● the number of categories or features of information in the document that can

serve to distract the reader or that may seem plausible but are incorrect

. the extent to which the information asked for in the question is obviously

related to the information stated in the document and

. the structure of the document

A more detailed discussion of the five levels of document literacy is

provided in the following pages.

I Document Level 1 Scale range: O to 225

Tasks in this level tend to require the reader e~her to locate a piece of

information based on a literal match or to enter information from

personal knowledge onto a document. Little, if any, distracting

information is present.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 195

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 23%

Some of the Level 1 tasks require the reader to match one piece of

information in the directive with an identical or synonymous piece of information

in the document. For example, readers maybe asked to write apiece of personal

background information — such as their name or age — in the appropriate place

on a document. One task with a difficulty value of 69 directs individuals to look

at a Social Security card and sign their name on the line marked “signature.”

Tasks such as this are quite simple, since only one piece of information is

required, it is known to the respondent, and there is only one logical place on the

document where it maybe entered.

●

●

●

Appendix A ll7
Here is a Social Security card. Sign your name on

the line that reads “signature.”

AL

miiiiil

30

HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR

SIGNATURE

I

? SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES ~ NOT FOR 10ENllFIMTliI

1’

Other tasks in this level are slightly more complex. For example, in one

task, readers were asked to complete a section of a job application by providing

several pieces of information. This was more complicated tkan the previous task

described, since respondents had to conduct a series of one-feature matches. As a

result, the difficulty value of this task was higher ( 193).

You have gone to an employment center for help in finding a

job. You know that this center handles many different kinds of

jobs. AISO, several of your friends who have applied here have

found jobs that appeal to you.

The agent has taken your name and address and given you

the rest of the form to fill out. Complete the form so the

employment center can help you get a job.

Birth date Age _ Sex: Male _ Female _

Height -Weight Health

Last grade completed in school

Kind of work wanted:

Part-time Summer

Full-time Year-round

?

.)O

118
?

Other tasks in this level ask the reader to locate specific elements in a

document that contains a variety of information. In one task, for example,

respondents were given a form providing details about a meeting and asked to

indicate the date and time of the meeting, which \vere stated in the form. The

difficulty values associated with these tasks were 187 and 180, respectively. The

necessary information was referred to only once in the document.

Document Level 2 Scale range: 226 to 275

Treks in this level are more varied than those in Level 1. Sonw require

the reader to match a single piece of information; howeve~ several

distracters may be present, or the match may require low-level

inferences. Tasks in this level may also ask the reader to cycle through

information in a document or to integrate information from various

parts of a document.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 249

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 28%

Some tasks in Level 2 ask readers to match two pieces of information in

the text, For example, one task with a difficulty value of 275 directs the

respondent to look at a pay stub and to write “the gross pay for this year to

date,” To perform the task successfully, respondents must match both “gross

pay” and “year to date” correctly. If readers fail to match on both features, they

are likely to indicate an incorrect amount,

What is the gross pay for this year to date?

PERIOD ENDING

HOURS 03/1 5/85 ‘Ssumfl OVERTIME GRO= O- ~N NET PAY

REGULAR 2ND SHIFT [ OVERTIME I TOTbL CURRENT 625;00 ! 62500 459;88

500 / \ 50\o -===--l 4268;85

TAX DEDLKTIOMS

FED Wm STATE W,+! CITV W,H FCA OTHEn DEDUCTIONS

CURRENT 108[94 13?5 38~1 CR “N? ‘; ‘ ‘“’E:” ‘ ‘E’sy ‘ “: ‘ ‘?

YEAR TO 734{98 oAm 82~0 261167

NON-NEGOTIABLE OTHER DEDUCTIONS

COOE TYPE AMOUNT COOE TYPE Am

07 DEN 4/1 2

Reduced from original copy.

Appendix A . .

●

☛

✎

✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ 119
A second question based on this document — What is the current net

pay? — was also expected to require readers to make a two-feature match.

Accordingly, the difficulty values of the two items were expected to be similar.

The task anchored at about the 224 point on the scale, however, and an analysis

of the pay stub reveals why its difficulty was lower than that of the previous

task. To succeed on the second task, the reader only needs to match on the

feature “net pay.” Since the term appears only once on the pay stub and there

is only one number in the column, this task requires only a one-feature match

and receives a difficulty value that lies within the Level 1 range on the

document scale.

Tasks in Level 2 may also require the reader to integrate information from

different parts of the document by looking for similarities or differences. For

example, a task with a difficulty value of 260 asks respondents to study a line

graph showing a company’s seasonal sales over a three-year period, then predict

the level of sales for the following year, based on the seasonal trends shown in

the graph.

You are a marketing manager for a small

manufacturing firm. This graph shows your

company’s sales over the last three years. Given the

seasonal pattern shown on the graph, predict the sales

for Spring 1985 (in thousands) by putting an “x” on

the graph,

i

1982 I 1983 I

1984 1985

80 I

I I

“ m

1 10 i

I

I

II /i

I I

I \/

I u I

I

Reduced from original copy

—*.*

120 . . . . . . Appendix A
Sonw tasks in this leuel require the reader to integrate multiple pieces

of information from one or more documents. Others ask readers to

cycle through rather complex tables or graphs which contain

information that is irrelevant or inappropriate to the task.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 302

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 31%

Tasks within the range for Level 3 ask the reader to locate particular

features in complex displays, such as tables that coritain nested information.

Typically, distracter information is present in the same row or column as the

correct answer. For example, the reader might be asked to use a table that

summarizes appropriate uses for a variety of products, and then choose which

product to use for a certain project. One such task had a difficulty value of 303.

To perform this task successfully, the respondent uses a table containing nested

information to determine the type of sandpaper to-buy if one needs “to smooth

wood in preparation for sealing and plans to buy garnet sandpaper.” This task

requires matching not only on more than a single feature of information but

also on features that are not always superordinate categories in the document.

For example, “preparation for sealing” is subordinated or nested under the

catego~ “wood,” while the type of sandpaper is under the main heading of

“garnet.” In addition, there are three other types of sandpaper that the reader

might select that partially satisfy the directive.

●

●

●

Appendix A l2l
You need to smooth wood in preparation for sealing

and plan to buy garnet sandpaper. What type of

sandpaper should you buy?

MATERIAL GARNET & OPERATION Ec ‘~~cTiO~ ~~ J ~ ~ ~ I WETORDRYM [ FRE.CUT* [ EMERY

IEFIvF WOOD EFISF]UFIVFIEFIC)M IF I

Paint Removal

Heavy Stock Removal

Moderate Stwk Removal

Prepara!um b Seahrq

Aner sealer

Between Coats

Alter Final Coat

METAL

Must acd Pa,nt Removal

Lght .stcek Removal

Pmp.watmn to< Pnm!rg

Fmshlrq ard Polishlng

After P“nle,

S.3hv9en Coats

Afier Final Coal

I I I I I 1 I

I I I

I I

1 1 1

I I I I I I 1 I I I

I

I I I I I I

1 I I

PLASTIC 6 FIBERGLASS

Shap,q

Light Stti Removal

F(mshmg & Scufllnq

EC= EXIT. Coarse C = Coarse M = Medum F = F,ne VF . Very F,ne EF = Extra Fme SF . S.Pr Fme UF. Uilra FIfm

SAFETY INFORMATION: ● Uss parl!cleldust mask or other ● When using power teds, follow

■ Wear approvsd safety gcggles means 10 prevent )nhalat!on of manufacturers recommeti

*n sanding. sanding dust. pf.xsdures and safety mstructwns.

Reduced from original copy.

At the same level of difficulty (307), another task directs the reader to a

stacked bar graph depicting estimated power consumption by source for four

different years. The reader is asked to select an energy source that will provide

more power in the year 2000 than it did in 1971. To succeed on this task, the

reader must first identify the correct years and then compare each of the five

pairs of energy sources given.

Document Level 4 Scale range: 326 to 375

Taks in this level, like those in the previous levels, ask readers to

pe~orm multiple-feature matches, cycle through docunwnts, and

integrate information; howeve< they require a greater degree of

inferencing. Many of these tasks require readers to provih numerous

responses but do not designate how muny responses are needed.

Conditional information is also present in the document tasks in this

level and must be taken into account by the readm

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 34o

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 15%

—e.

●

122 . . . . . . Appendix A
One task in this level (348) combines many of the variables that contribute

to difficulty in Level 4. These include: multiple feature matching, complex

displays involving nested information, numerous distracters, and conditional

information that must be taken into account in order to arrive at a correct

response. Using the bus schedule shown here, readers are asked to select the time

of the next bus on a Saturday afternoon, if they miss the 2:35 bus leaving

Hancock and Buena Ventura going to Flintridge and Academy. Several

departure times are given, from which respondents must choose the correct one.

On Saturday afternoon, if you miss the 2:35 bus

leaving Hancock and Buena Ventura going to

Flintridge and Academy, how long will you have to

wait for the next bus?

ROUT E VISTA GRANDE

R

This bus line operates Monday through Saturday providing “focal serviceto most neighborhoods m the northeast secflo~.

Buses run thlrfy minutes apart during the mornmg and afternoon rush hours Monday through Friday.

l-l Buses run one-hour aparf al all othe~ times of day and SaturdayNo Sunday, holiday or night service.

You can transfer from this bus

to another headed anywhere OUTBOUND else m the cdy bua system II INBOUND

fro-m Te;minal II toward Terminal

Anlva

FIIMMSS

%Y

t

Leavs Leave

Fli~ North

Carefres

Acadamy

CTo%m

6:15 6:27

6:45 6:57

7:15 7:27

745 7:57

8:15 8:27

8:45 8:57

9:15 9:27

9:45 9:57

Leave

Fl”stlc

H,lk

6:42

7:12

7:42

8:12

8:42

9:12

9:42

10:12

10:42

11:42

12:42 r).m.

~!~l

6:47

7:17

7;47

8:17

8:47

9:17

9:47

10:17

10:47

11:47

12:47 p.m.

Leave

Harco&

Buena

Ventura

6:57

7:27

7;57

8:27

8:57

9:27

9:57

10:27

10:57

11:57

12:57 p.m.

Arriva

Downtown

Terminal

7:15

7:45 MUidW throueh Friday only

6:15

8:45 MOndSY through Friday only

9:15

t

8:20 6:35

8:50 7:05

AM

7:20 7:35

7:50 8:05

8:20 8:35

8:50 9:05

9:20 9:35

10:20 10:35

6:45

7:15

7:45

8:15

8:45

9:15

9:45

10:45

11:45

12:45

1:45

2:45

3:15

3:45

4:15

4:45

5:15

5:45

6:15

6:45

6:50

7:20

7:50

8:20

6:50

9:20

9:50

10:50

11:50

12:50

1:50

2:50

3:20

3:50

4:20

4:50

5:20

5:50

6:20

8:50

7:03

7:33

8:03

8:33

9:03

9:33

7:15

7:45

8:15

846

9:15

9:45

9:45 M-y through FrklaY 01’IIY

10:15

t 0:45 M*Y through FrldaY MIY

11:15

12:15

l:15p.m.

10:03

11:03

12:03

10:15

11:15

12:15

10:15 10:27

11:15 11:27

11:20 11:35 12:15 12:27

12:20 12:35

1:20 1:35

2:20 2:35

PM 2:50 3:05

3:20 3:35

3:50 4:05

4:20 4:35

4:50 5:05

1:03 1:15 1:15 1:27

2:03 2:15 2:15 2:27

3:03 3:15 3:15 3:27

3s3 3:45 3:45 3:57

4:03 4:15 4:15 4:27

4:33. 4:45 4:45 4:57

5:03 5:15 5:15 5:27

1:42

2:42

3:42

4:12

4:42

4:12

5:42

8:12

1:47

2:47

3:47

4:17

4:47

4:17

5:47

6:17

1:57

2:57

3:57

4:27

4:57

5:27

5:57

8:27

2:15

3:15

4:15

4:45 MG+IdSY thrwgh Fdd8Y OIIIV

5:15

5:45 hkldy thmuoh Frld8Y OIMV

6:15

w

6:45 MOIld9Y HWOUIIh F- ~~

5:20 5:35

5:50 6:05

6:20 6:35

WY through FfId8v miv

To be sure 04a smanti Imnsfer

tell the driver.1 thm buss ttm nanw

Orlhe-lYJ, yOumOll

.

●

●

Appendix A . . . . ..l23
>>

Other tasks involving this bus schedule are found in Level 3. These tasks

require the reader to match on fewer features of information and do not involve

the use of conditional information.

Documenl Lmel ,5 Scale range: 376 to 500

Tasks in this level require the reader to search through complex

displays that contain multiple distracters, to muke high-level textba.sed inferences, and to use specialized knowledge,

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 391

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 3%

A task receiving a difficulty value of 396 involves reading and

understanding a table depicting the results from a survey of parents and teachers

evaluating parental involvement in their school. Respondents were asked to write

a brief paragraph summarizing the results. This particular task requires readers

to integrate the information in the table to compare and-contrast the

viewpoints of parents and teachers on a selected number of

school issues.

Using the information in the table, write a brief

paragraph summarizing the extent to which parents

and teachers agreed or disagreed on the statements

about issues pertaining to parental involvement at

their school.

●

124 . . . . . . Appendix A
-.

Parents and Teachers Evaluate Parental

Involvement at Their School

Doyouagree ordisagree that... ?

Level of School

Total Elementary Junior High High School

percent agreeing

Our school does a good job of

encouraging parental involvement in

sports, arts, and other nonsubject areas

Parents 77 76 74 79

Teachers 77 73 77 65

Our school does a good job of

encouraging parental involvement in

educational areas %

Parents 73 82 71 64

Teachers 60 64 78 70

Our school only contacts parents

when there is a problem with their child

I

Parents 66 46 62 63

Teachers 23 - 18. 22 33 I

Our school does not give parents the

oppoflunity for any meaningful roles

I Parents 22 18 22 26

Teachers 8 8 12 7 I

Source: The Metro@itan Life Survey of the Amerlean Teacher, 1987

Quantitative Literacy

Since adults are often required to perform numerical operations in everyday

life, the ability to perform quantitative tasks is another important aspect of

literacy. These abilities may seem, at first glance, to be fundamentally different

from the types of skills involved in reading prose and documents and,

therefore, to extend the concept of literacy beyond its traditional limits.

However, research indicates that the processing of printed information plays a

critical role in affecting the difficulty of tasks aJong this scale.3

31.S. Kirsch and A. Jungeblut. (1986). Literacy: Profiles of Americak Young Adults,

Final Report. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. 1.S. Kirsch, A. Jungeblut, and A. Campbell.

(1992). Beyond the School Doors: The Literacy Needs of ]ob Seekers Served by

the U.S. Department of Labor. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

●

●

●

Appendix A . . . . ..l25
. .

The NALS quantitative literacy scale contains some 43 tasks with difficulty

values that range from 191 to 436. The difficulty of these tasks appears to be a

function of several factors, including:

~ the particular arithmetic operation called for

~ the number of operations needed to perform the task

s the extent to which the numbers are embedded in printed materials and

~ the extent to which an inference must be made to identi$ the type of

operation to be performed

In general, it appears that many individuals can perform simple arithmetic

operations when both the numbers and operations are made explicit. However,

when the numbers to be used must be located in and extracted from different

types of documents that contain similar but irrelevant information, or when the

operations to be used must be inferred from printed directions, the tasks become

increasingly difficult.

A detailed discussion of the five levels of quantitative literacy is provided

on the following pages.

Quantitative Level 1 Scale range: O to 225

Tasks in this level require readers to perform single, relatively simple

arithwwtic operations, such as addition. The numbers to be used are

provided and the arithmetic operation to be per$ormed is specfied.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 206

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 22%

The least demanding task on the quantitative scale (191) requires the

reader to total two numbers on a bank deposit slip. In this task, both the

numbers and the arithmetic operation are judged to be easily identified and the

operation involves the simple addition of two decimal numbers that are setup

in column format.

s

*.

126 . . . . . . Appendix A
You wish to use the automatic teller machine at your

bank to make a deposit. Figure the total amount of the

two checks being deposited. Enter the amount on the

form in the space next to TOTAL.

Availability of Deposits

Funds from daposii may not be available for immediate withdrawsI. Pleasa refer to

your institution’s rubs governing funds availMity for details. —— —— —— —— __ __ __ __ .

-Wof-*@~is~b~n@dltind*dm*‘

dapoeiied or paid in accodarrca with the rules and regulations of your financial institution. \

PLEASE PRINT

- MAC CARD NUMSER (No PINs PLEASE)

Itf .Z.Z? 3334

Mlt.JR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION

%.uhb’Zu

WUR ACCOUNT NUMBER

987 555 674

WXIR NAME

c4&a/$’ou.d

CHECK ONE •l DEPOSIT

❑ PAYM:NT

s

CASH $ 00

LIST CHECKS ENOORSE WITH NAME

BY BANK NO. & ACCOUNT NUMBER

557 /9

75 00

TOTAL

I

I

—— —— —— __ __ __ __ _ —-

DO NOT FOLD NO COINS OR PAPER CLIPS PLEASE

I

/

Quantitative Level 2 Scale range: 226 to 275

Taks in this level typically require readers to perform a single

operation using numbens that are either stated in the task or easily

located in the material. The operation to be peformed may be stated

in the question or easily determined from the format of the muterial

~orexample, an order form).

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 251

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 25%

In the easier tasks in Level 2, the quantities are also easy to locate. In one

such task at 246 on the quantitative scale, the cost of a ticket and bus is given for

each of tsvo shows. The reader is directed to determine how much less

attending one show will cost in comparison to the other.

●

●

●

127
THEATER

The price of one ticket and bus for “Sleuth” costs

how much less than the price of one ticket and bus

for “On the Town”?

TRIP

A charter bus will leave from the bus stop (near the Conference Center)

at 4 p.m., giving you plenty of time for dinner in New York. Return trip

will start from West 45th Street directly following the plays. Both theaters

are on West 45th Street. Allow about 1 M hours for the return trip.

Time: 4 p.m., Saturday, November 20

Price: “On the Town” Ticket and bus $11.00

“Sleuth” Ticket and bus $8.50

Limit: Two tickets per person

In a more complex set of tasks, the reader is directed to complete an order

form for of%ce supplies using a page from a catalogue. No other specific

instructions as to what parts of the form should be completed are given in the

directive. One task (difficulty value of 270) requires the reader to use a table on

the form to locate the appropriate shipping charges based on the amount of a

specified set of office supplies, to enter the correct amount on an order form,

and then to calculate the total price of the supplies.

Quantitative Level 3 Scale range: 276 to 325

In tasks in this level, two or more numbers are typically needed to

solve the problem, and these must befwnd in the material. The

operation(s) needed can be determinedfrom the arithmetic relation

terms used in the question or directive.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 293

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 31%

●

e*

128 . . . . . . Appendix A
.-.

In general, tasks within the range for Level 3 ask the reader to perform a

single operation of addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division. However,

the operation is not stated explicitly in the directive or made clear by the format

of the document. Instead, it must be inferred from the terms used in the directive.

These tasks are also more difficult because the reader must locate the numbers in

various parts of the document in order to perform the operation.

From a bar graph showing percentages of population growth for two groups

across six periods, a task at the 279 point on the scale directs the reader to

calculate the difference between the groups for one of the years.

A more difficult task in Level 3 (321) requires the use of a bus schedule to

determine how long it takes to travel from one location to another on a Saturday.

To respond correctly, the reader must match on several features of information

given in the question to locate the appropriate times.

Suppose that you took the 12:45 p.m. bus from

U.A.L.R. Student Union to 17th gnd M~n on a

Saturday. According to the schedule, how many

minutes is the bus ride?

●

●

●

129
I —. I

h h A’.

h

BUS LEAVES Bus arrives Bus arrives BUS ENDS

from at at

U. A.L.R. 20th & 1 7:; & Capitol &

Student Union Wood row Main Louisiana

A.M. (5 5:38 5’51 6:00

6:11

6:09

6:25 6:35 6:45

&

641

7!11

655

7!25

705

7!35

715

7:45

&

741

8i 1

755

8:25

805

8;35

8’15

8!45

&

841

9:14

855

9!27

9’05

9;36

9.15

9:45

&

944

10:14

957

10:27

10:06 10.15

10:36 10;45

&

1044

11:14

1057

11 !27

1106

11 !36

1115

11:45

11.44 11’57

P.M. & 12;14 12;27

1206

12;36

1215

12;45

&

1244

1:14

1257

1:27

1 me

1 ;36

115

1 ;45

&

144

2:14

157

2:27

206

2:36

215

2:45

&

244

3:14

2.57

3;27

306

3:36

315

3:45

&

343

4:13

356

4;26

405

4:35

415

4:45

&

443

5:13

456

5126

5.05

5;35

515

5:45

A

545

6:11

556

6i2

607

6i0

6:17

(< 6:46 6:57 7:05

A.M. & 536 5:51 6:00 6:09

6:45 6:57

&

7:06 7:15

7:45 7;57 6:06 8:15

6:45 6:57 9:06 9:15

& 9:45- 9:57 10:06 10:15

10:45 10:57

k

11:06 11:15

11:45 11 ;57 12:06 12:15

P.M. 12:45 12:57

&

1:06 1:16

1:45 1:57 2:06 2:15

2:46 2:57 3:06 3:15

& 3:45 3:57 4:06 4:15

445 4:57

&

5:06 6:15

5:45 5:57 6:06 6:15

6:44 6:56 7:05

Reduced from original copy,

●

● ☛

130 . . . . . . Appendix A
-.

.<~u:mrita~i~<’ ~~,tt’i $ Scale range: 326 to 375

These tasks tend to require readers to perjorm two or more sequential

operations or a single operation in which the quantities are found in

diflerent types of displays, or the operations must be inferred from

semantic information given or drawn from prior knowledge.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this level: 349

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 17%

One task in this level, with a difficulty value of 332, asks the reader to

estimate, based on information in a news article, h~w many miles per day a

driver covered in a sled-dog race. The respondent must know that to calculate

‘<

a per day” rate requires the use of division.

A more difficult task (355) requires the reader to select from two unit

price labels to estimate the cost per ounce of creamy peanut butter, To perform

this task successfully, readers may have to draw some information from prior

knowledge. .

Estimate the cost per ounce of the creamy peanut

butter. Write your estimate on the line provided.

Unit price You pay

I 11 .8c per oz. /

1.89 I

I

rich chnky pnt bt I

10693 0

I

5114409071 I 11 II 16 OZ.

Unit price

>

You pay

1.59 per lb. 1.99

I creamy pnt butter I

10732 0

I

5114409071 I IIII

20 oz.

.

●

●

Appendix A . . . . ..l3l
t.)utllltitaii~e i,c>e i .5 Scale range: 376 to 500

These tasks require readers to pe~orm multiple operations

sequentially. They must ~isembed the featu res of the problem from

text or rely on background knowledge to determine the quantities or

operations needed.

Average difficulty value of tasks in this leveli 411

Percentage of adults performing in this level: 4%

One of the most difficult tasks on the quantitative scale (433) requires

readers to look at an advertisement for a home equity loan and then, using the

information given, explain how they would calculate the total amount of

interest charges associated with the loan.

You need to borrow $10,000. Find the ad for Home

Equity Loans on page 2 in the new{pape;provided.

Explain to the interviewer how you would compute

the total amount of interest charges you would pay

under this loan plan. Please tell the interviewer

when you are ready to begin.

FIXED RATE ● FIXED TERM

HOME

EQUITY

LOANS Annual Percentage Rate

14,25%

Ten Year Term

SAMPLE MONTHLY REPAYMENT SCHEDULE

Amount Financed Monthly Payment

$10,000 $156.77

$25,000 $391.93

$40,000 $627.09

120 Months 14.25% APR

Reduced from original copy.

.

132 . . . . . . Appendix A
The main purpose of the literacy scales is to summarize how well adults can

perform on the full array of tasks in the assessment. The difficulty of the

assessment tasks increases proportionally with the progression of informationprocessing demands across the scales. The literacy levels provide a way not only

to explore this progression, but also to explore the likelihood that individuals in

each level will succeed on tasks of varying difficulty.

The following graphs (Figure A.2) display the probability that individuals

performing at selected points on each scale will give a correct response to tasks

with varying difficulty values. For example, a person whose prose proficiency is

150 has less than a 50 percent chance of giving a correct response to an average

prose task in Level 1, where the average task difficul& is 198. Individuals

whose scores were at the 200 point, on the other hand, have an almost 80

percent probability of responding correctly to these tasks.

In terms of task demands, adults performing at the 200 point on the prose

scale are likely to be able to locate a single piece of information in a brief piece

of text where there is no distracting information, or when any distracting

information is located apart from the desired in~orma;ion. They are likely to

have far more difficulty with the types of tasks that occur in Levels 2 through 5,

however. For example, they would have only about a 30 percent chance of

performing the average task in Level 2 correctly, where the average task

difficulty value is 259, and only about a 10 percent chance of success, or less,

on the more challenging tasks found in Levels 3, 4, and 5.

In contrast, readers at the 300 point on the prose scale have more than an

80 percent probability of success on tasks in Levels 1 and 2, and have close to

an 80 percent likelihood of success on tasks in Level 3, where the average task

difficulty value is 298. This means that they demonstrate consistent success

identifying information in fairly dense text without organizational aids. They

can also consistently integrate, compare, and contrast information that is easily

identified in the text. On the other hand, they are likely not to have mastered

tasks that require them to make higher level inferences, to take conditional

information into account, and to use specialized knowledge. The probabilities

of their successfully performing these Level 4 tasks, where the average task

difficulty value is 352, are just under 50 percent, and on the Level 5 tasks their

likelihood of responding correctly falls to less than 20 percent.

Similar interpretations can be made using the performance results on the

document and quantitative scales. For example, an individual with a

proficiency of 150 on the document scale is estimated to have less than a 50

percent chance of responding correctly to tasks in Level 1, where the average

task difficulty value is 195, and less than a 30 percent chance of responding

●

●

9

Appendix A l33
. . ...’

. .

Figure A.2

Average Probabilities of Successful Performance by Individuals with Selected Proficiency

Scores on the Tasks in Each Literacy Level

PROSE

L;~e Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

teaks taeke tasks tacks

DOCUMENT

0.2

0.1

I

I ( 0.04 ,

1 I

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

tasks tasks tasks tesks teaks

QUANTITATIVE

Lg~ Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

tasks tasks tasks tasks

Source U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

134 . . . . . . Appendix A
correctly to tasks in each of the higher levels. On the quantitative literacy scale.

adults with a proficiency of 150 are estimated to have only a 50 percent chance

of responding correctly to an average document task in Level 1, where the

average task difficulty is 206, and less than a 30 percent chance of responding

correctly to tasks in the other levels. Such individuals demonstrate little or no

proficiency in performing the range of quantitative tasks found in this

assessment. In contrast, adults with a quantitative score of 300 exceed the 80

percent criterion for the average tasks in Levels 1 and 2 and meet the 80

percent criterion for many of the tasks in Level 3. They can be expected to

encounter more difficulty with quantitative tasks in Levels 4 and 5.

Missing Responses to Literacy Tasks

In any educational, social, or political opinion survey, missing responses are

always present. Sometimes missing data can be ignored when tabulating and

reporting survey results. If the reasons the data are missing are related to the

outcome of the study, however, the missing responses @l bias the results

unless some adjustment can be made to counter the bias. In this survey, there

were reasons to believe that the literacy performance data were missing more

often for adults with lower levels of literacy than for adults with higher levels.

Field test evidence and experience with surveys indicated that adults with

lower levels of literacy would be more likely than adults with higher

proficiencies either to decline to respond to the survey at all or to begin the

assessment but not to complete it. Ignoring the pattern of missing data would

have resulted in overestimating the literacy skills of adults in the United States.

For this survey, several procedures were developed to reduce biases due

to nonresponse, based on how much of the survey the respondent completed.3

Individuals who refused to participate in the survey before any information

about them was collected were omitted from the analyses. Because they were

unlikely to know that the survey intended to assess their literacy, it was

assumed that their reason for refusing was not related to their level of literacy

skills.

Some individuals began the interview, but stopped before they completed

at least five tasks on each literacy scale.4 The interviewers were trained to

record accurately their reasons for stopping. The reasons were subsequently

3For a full discussion of the procedures used in scoring, scaling, weighting, and handling nonresponse problems,

see the forthcoming Technical Report of the 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey.

Wve was the minimum number of completed tasks needed for accurate proficiency estimation. No sped

procedures were needed to estimate the proficiencies of those who broke off the assessment after attempting

five or more tasks on each scale.

●

●

●

Appendix A
,.

classified as either related or unrelated to literacy skills. Literacy-related

reasons included difficulty with reading or writing, inability to read or write in

English, and mental or learning disabilities. Reasons unrelated to literacy

included physical disabilities, time conflicts, and interruptions. Some adults

gave no reason for stopping the assessment.

Overall, 88 percent of respondents completed the assessment (at least five

tasks on each literacy scale). Twelve percent started the survey but stopped

before completing five tasks. About half of these individuals, or 6 percent of

the adult population, did not complete the assessment for reasons related to

their literacy skills, while the other 6 percent did not complete it for reasons

unrelated to literacy or for no stated reason.

The missing data were treated differently depending on whether

nonrespondents’ reasons were related or unrelated to their literacy skills. The

missing responses of those who gave literacy-related reasons for terminating

the assessment were treated as wrong answers, based on the assumption that

they could not have correctly completed the literacy tasks. The missing

responses of those who broke off the assessment for no stated reason or for

reasons unrelated to literacy were essentially igiiored,-since it could not be

assumed that their answers would have been either correct or incorrect. The

proficiencies of such respondents were inferred from the performance of other

adults with similar characteristics.

Table A. 1 shows the proficiency scores resulting from these procedures.

Adults who completed the assessment had average proficiencies ranging from

279 to 285 on the three literacy scales. Because the missing responses of adults

who did not complete the assessment for reasons related to literacy were

treated as wrong answers, the average scores of these adults were considerably

lower, ranging from 114 to 124. Nearly all adults who terminated the

assessment for literacy-related reasons scored in the Level 1 range (below 225).

Adults who stopped for other reasons or for unstated reasons had scores

between those of the other two groups, ranging from 228 to 237. These adults

were not found only in the lowest literacy level, but were distributed across the

five levels,

It is likely that there were some errors in classifying nonrespondents’

reasons for not completing the assessment. Some adults may have given an

explanation that reflected badly on their literacy skills simply because they

found completing the assessment too burdensome. Perhaps they could have

performed better if they had tried harder. The assumption that such adults are

unable to succeed with the literacy tasks maybe too strong, and the assignment

of wrong answers may underestimate their skills. Other adults may have

anticipated failure in the assessment, yet concealed their lack of literacy

●

136 . . . . . . Appendix A
Table A. 1: Percentages and average proficiencies of adults on each

scale, by assessment completion status

Literacy scale

Prose Document Quantitativ e

Assessment completion status CPCT PROF (se) PROF (se) PROF (se)

Total 100 272 (0.6) 267 (0.7) 271 (0.7)

Completed assessment 88 285 (0.6) 279 (0.6) 284 (0.6)

Did not complete assessment

for literacy-related reasons 6 124 (1.5) 116 (1.4) 114 (1.9)

Did not complete assessment

for reasons unrelated to literacy 6 237 (3.0) 228 (2.8) 231 (3.6)

Notes: CPCT = column percentage; PROF . average proficiency; se . standard error.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, NationaJ Center for Education Statistics, National

Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

skills by citing other reasons for not responding, or by refusing to explain their

reason. The assumption that these adults are just like ?ithers in their

demographic group may also be too strong, and the failure to assign wrong

answers may overestimate their skills, To some extent the errors can be

expected to counterbalance one another, but the available data are insufficient

to assess which kind of classification error occurred more often.

Performance in the Lowest Literacy Levei

Level 1 is somewhat different from the other literacy levels. For Levels 2

through 5, adults who can consistently perform the tasks in a given level (that

is, at least 80 percent of the time) are said to perform in that level. For

example, adults in Level 2 have a high probability of success on the tasks in that

level, and more than an 80 percent likelihood of success on the Level 1 tasks.

Likewise, adults in Level 3 have a high probability of success on the tasks in

that level, as well as on the tasks in Levels 1 and 2.

Level 1, on the other hand, includes adults with a wide range of literacy

skills, including some who performed the Level 1 tasks consistently and others

who did not. Individuals who do not have an 80 percent probability of success

with Level 1 tasks are still grouped in Level 1. Thus, some but not all adults in

this level met the relatively undemanding requirements of the Level 1 tasks.

This section describes how many adults in Level 1 did not meet the demands of

the tasks in this level.

●

✎

●

137
>

The failure to perform correctly at least one of the literacy tasks can be

taken as an indicator of not being able to meet the demands of tasks in Level 1.

Table A.2 provides information on the size of the groups that met or did not

meet the relatively undemanding requirements of the Level 1 tasks.

Most adults in the lowest literacy level on each scale performed at least

one literacy task correctly. Nearly three-quarters (72 percent) of adults in Level

1 on the prose scale performed at least one tm”k correctly, as did 83 percent of

those in Level 1 on the document scale and 66 percent of those in Level 1 on

the quantitative scale. The difference in performance among the scales occurs

because the least difficult document task had a value of 68, while the least

difficult prose task had a value of 149 and the least difficult quantitative task

had a value of 191.

Table A.2: Percentages and average proficiencies on each scale of

adults in Level 1

Literacy scale

Prose - Dociiment Quantitative

Performance CPCT PROF CPCT PROF CPCT PROF

Total in Level 1 100 173 100 172 100 167

At least one task correct 72 190 83 182 66 190

No tasks correct 21 113 11 94 26 110

No performance data 7 177 6 177 8 159

Notes: CPCT = column percentage; PROF . average proficiency.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National

Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

A small proportion of adults in Level 1 did not perform any literacy tasks

correctly. Some of these adults completed the survey, while others did not for

literacy-related or other reasons. Those who did not succeed on any literacy

tasks constitute 21 percent of adults in Level 1 on the prose scale, 11 percent of

adults in Level 1 on the document scale, and 26 percent of adults in Level 1 on

the quantitative scale. There are wide disparities in average proficiencies

between those who performed at least one task correctly ( 182 to 190 across the

scales) and those who did not (94 to 113 across the scales).

For some adults in Level 1 (6 to 8 percent) there are no literacy

performance data because they did not respond to any of the literacy tasks for

reasons unrelated to their literacy skills or for unknown reasons. These persons

could not be described as either meeting or failing to meet the demands of the

literacy tasks, so they are distinguished as a separate group. Their proficiencies

●

.0

138
were inferred from the performance of other adults with similar demographic

backgrounds and fell in the middle range between the other two groups.

Nearly all adults who correctly responded to at least one literacy task also

completed the assessment. Still, some adults broke off the assessment after

already having shown some initial success. Table A.3 divides adults in Level 1

who were successful with at least one task into two groups: those who

completed the assessment (at least five literacy tasks) and those who did not

Across the scales, from 83 to 90 percent of those in Level 1 who correctly

responded to at least one task also completed the assessment. Their average

scores ranged from 192 to 196. The remainder (10 to 17 percent) performed at

least one task correctly before breaking off the assessment. Their average

scores were much lower, ranging from 132 to 153.

Table A.3: Percentages and average proficiencies of adults in Level 1

with at least one task correct, by assessment completion status

Literacy scale

Prose Docufient Quantitative

Completion status CPCT PROF CPCT PROF CPCT PROF

Total in Level 1 with

at least one task correct 100 190 100 182 100 190

Completed assessment 87 196 83 192 90 194

Did not complete

assessment 13 153 17 132 10 153

Notes: CPCT = column percentage; PROF . average proficiency.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, NationaJ Center for Education Statistics, National

Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

The population of adults who scored in Level 1 on each scale includes not

only those who demonstrated success with at least some of the tasks in Level 1

— who constituted the majority — but also those who did not succeed with any

of the tasks in this level. Nearly all of those in Level 1 who did not perform any

literacy tasks correctly also failed to complete the assessment (86 to 98

percent), as shown in table A.4. Their average scores range from 93 to 107

across the scales. Most of these adults either did not start or broke off the

assessment for literacy-related reasons, so that any literacy tasks that remained

unanswered were treated as incorrect.

.“

.

A di A l39
Table A.4: Percentages and average proficiencies of adults in Level I

with no tasks correct, by assessment completion status

Literacv scale

Prose Document Quantitative

Completion status CPCT PROF CPCT PROF CPCT PROF

Total in Level 1 with

no tasks correct 100 113 100 94 100 110

Completed assessment 14 148 2 ---- 14 146

Did not complete

assessment 86 107 98 93 86 98

Notes: CPCT . column percentage; PROF = average proficiency,,,

---- indicates that the cell size is too small to provide reliable proficiency estimates.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NationaJ

Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

Two to 14 percent of the adults in Level 1 who did not succeed on any of

the literacy tasks did, in fact, complete the asse&men{. Their average scores

were 148 on the prose scale and 146 on the quantitative scale; too few cases

were available to estimate an average document score.

The pattern of Level 1 proficiencies associated with various combinations

of missing and incorrect answers shows the consequences of including, rather

than excluding, adults who did not complete the assessment for literacy-related

reasons. In general, the very low scores of these adults bring down the average

for any group in which they area significant component. Omitting these

persons from the assessment would have resulted in inflated estimates of the

literacy skills of the adult population overall and particularly of certain

subgroups.

Population Diversity within the Lowest Literacy Level

Certain populations of adults were disproportionately likely not to meet the

demands of the Level 1 tasks. This section describes the characteristics of

adults in Level 1 who did not meet the relatively undemanding requirements of

the tasks in this level. Tables A.5P, D, and Q provide information on the

demographic composition of the total adult population in this country, of adults

in Level 1 on each literacy scale, and of those adults in Level 1 who did not

succeed on any of the assessment tasks.

●

● ☛

140
Table A.5P: Percentages of adults in selected groups, by membership

in total U.S. population, in Level 1, and in Level 1 with no tasks correct

Prose scale

Level 1

Total U.S. Level 1 no tasks

Dormlation ~otmlation correct

Population group CPCT CPCT CPCT

Weighted sample size

(in millions) 191.3 40.0 8.2

Country of birth

Born in another country 10 ~~ 25 (1.3) 55 (2.2)

Highest level of education

O to 8 years 10 35 (1.6) 61 (2.3)

9 to 12 years 13 27 (1.3) 17 (1.5)

HS diploma or GED 30 24 (1.4) 14 (1.5)

Race/Ethnicity

White ’76 - 51 (0.6) 29 (2.3)

Black 11 20 (1.0) 15 (1.4)

Hispanic 10 23 (1.4) 49 (2.1)

Asian/Pacific Islander 2 4 (3.9) 5 (0.9)

Age

16 to 24 years 18 13 (0.8) 10 (1.2)

65 years and older 16 33 (1.5) 28 (1.8)

Disability or condition

Any condition 12 26 (1.0) 26 (1.7)

Visual difficulty 7 19 (1.5) 20 (1.5)

Hearing difficulty 7 13 (1.6) 13 (2.0)

Learning disability 3 9 (2.1) 15 (1.4)

Notes: CPCT = column percentage; se = standard error.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National

Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

●

A di A l4l
-.

Table A.5D: Percentages of adults in selected groups, by membership

in total U.S. population, in Level 1, and in Level 1 with no tasks correct

Document scale

Level 1

Total U.S. Level 1 no tasks

population population correct

Population group CPCT CPCT CPCT

Weighted sample size

(in millions) 191.3 44.0 4.7

Country of birth

Born in another country 10 ,22 (1.3) 67 (3.2)

Highest level of education

O to 8 years 10 33 (1.5) 65 (3.1)

9 to 12 years 13 26 (1.5) 12 (1.7)

HS diploma or GED 30 26 (1.7) 13 (2.1)

Race/Ethnicity

White 76 -54 (0.7) 21 (3.0)

Black 11 20 (0.9) 9 (1.1)

Hispanic 10 21 (1.7) 62 (3.2)

Asian/Pacific Islander 2 3 (3.2) 5 (1.6)

Age

16 to 24 years 18 11 (0.6) 11 (1.8)

65 years and older 16 35 (1.5) 25 (2.2)

Disability or condition

Any condition 12 26 (1.2) 22 (2.5)

Visual difficulty 7 18 (1.3) 17 (2.3)

Hearing difficulty 7 13 (2.0) 12 (2.0)

Learning disability 3 8 (2.3) 14 (1.6)

Notes: CPCT = column percentage; se . standard error.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National

Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

While 10 percent of the adult population reported that they were born in

another country, from 22 to 25 percent of the individuals who performed in

Level 1 on the three scales and 54 to 67 percent of those in Level 1 who did

not perform any tasks correctly were foreign born. Some of these individuals

were undoubtedly recent immigrants with a limited command of English.

I

142
Table A.5Q: Percentages of adults in selected groups, by membership

in total U.S. population, in Level 1, and in Level 1 with no tasks correct

Quantitative scale

Level 1

Total U.S. Level 1 no tasks

population population correct

Population ,qroup CPCT CPCT CPCT

Weighted sample size

(in millions) 191.3 42.0 10.6

Country of birth

Born in another country 10 22 (1.2) 54 (2.0)

.

Highest level of education

O to 8 years 10 33 (1.6) 58 (2.5)

9 to 12 years 13 27 (1.5) 20 (1.5)

HS diploma or GED 30 25 (1,6) 13 (1.3)

Race/Ethnicity

White 76 50 (0.5) 34 (2.2)

Black 11- 23 (0.9) 19 (1.2)

Hispanic 10 22 (1.3) 40 (1.9)

Asian/Pacific Islander 2 3 (3.6) 5 (0.9)

Age

16 to 24 years 18 14 (0.8) 10 (0.9)

65 years and older 16 32 (1.5) 32 (1.7)

Disability or condition

Any condition 12 26 (1.2) 28 (1.4)

Visual difficulty 7 19 (1.4) 21 (1.4)

Hearing difficulty 7 12 (2.1) 13 (1.5)

Learning disability 3 8 (2.7) 15 (1.0)

Notes: CPCT = column percentage; se = standard error.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National

Adult Literacy Survey, 1992,

Adults who did not complete high school were also disproportionately

represented at the low end of the literacy scales. While 23 percent of the adult

population reported that they had not completed high school, 59 to 62 percent

of adults who performed in Level 1 on the three scales and 77 to 78 percent of

those in Level 1 with no tasks correct said they had not completed high school

or its equivalent.

●

☛

●

Appendix A . . . . ..l43
Relatively high percentages of the respondents in Level 1 were Black,

Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander. The largest group among those who did not

perform any tasks correctly were Hispanic. Hispanics and Asian/Pacific

Islanders are more likely than others to be recent immigrants with a limited

command of English.

Older adults were overrepresented in the Level 1 population as well as in

the population of adults who did not meet the demands of the Level 1 tasks.

While 16 percent of the total U.S. population was age 65 or older,

approximately one-third of the Level 1 population and 25 to 32 percent of the

adults in Level 1 who performed no literacy tasks correctly were in this age

group. In contrast, compared with their representation in the total U.S.

population (18 percent), younger adults were underrepresented in Level 1 (11

to 14 percent) and in the subgroup of Level 1 that did not succeed on any of

the literacy tasks (10 to 11 percent).

Disabilities are sometimes associated with low literacy performance.

While 12 percent of the adult population reported having a physical, mental, or

health condition that kept them from participating fully in work and other

activities, 26 percent of adults who performed in LevelJ and 22 to 28 percent

of those in Level 1 who did not succeed on any of the literacy tasks had such

conditions. Further, while only 3 percent of the U.S. population reported

having a learning disability, 8 to 9 percent of the adults who performed in Level

1 on the prose, document, and quantitative scales and 14 to 15 percent of those

in Level 1 who did not succeed on any task had this type of disability.

These results show that adults in some population groups were

disproportionately likely to perform in the lowest literacy level, and among

those who performed in this level, were disproportionately likely not to succeed

on any of the literacy tasks in the assessment.

.

● “

144 . . . . . . Appendix A
APPENDIX B

Additional Tables

- Table BI 1

.

E

//4K\-

‘hw=~ Percentages and average document proficiencies of older

Id and younger adults, by self-reported literacy proficiencies

AREA OF LITERACY/ SELF-REPORTED PROFICIENCY

AGE Not well or

Very well Well not at all

WGT N RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE)

n (/1 ,000) PROF (SE)- PROF (SE) PROF (SE)

Understand

60 and older 3,709 39,41 7 78 (1 .0) 19 (0.9) 3 (0.3)

235 (1 .7) 201 (3.2) 115 (7.5)!

16t059 22,367 151,788 82 (0.5) 14 (0.5) 3 (0.2)

289 (0.6) 248 (1 .8) 132 (2.6)

Speak

60 and older 3,708 39,385 68 (1.1) 28 (1.1) 4 (0.5)

235 (1 .8) 212 (3.1) 133 (9.1)!

16t059 22,360 151,696 73 (0.9) 23 (0.8) 4 (0.2)

292 (0.7) 259 (1 .4) 143 (2.9)

Read

60 and older 3,701 39,319 66 (1.1) 25 (1 .0) 8 (0.7)

240 (1 .7) 213 (3.0) 136 (4.0)

16t059 22,340 151,608 72 (0.7) 22 (0.6) 7 (0.3)

295 (0.6) 259 (1 .2) 156 (2.9)

Write

60 and older 3,692 39,219 60 (1 .4) 28 (1 .2) 12 (1 .0)

242 (2.0) 218 (2.6) 157 (3.6)

16t059 22,307 151,429 65 (0.8) 26 (0.7) 9 (0.3)

295 (0.6) 267 (1 .2) 181 (2.6)

Do arithmetic

60 and older 3,706 39,350 50 (1 .2) 33 (1 .0) 17 (0.9)

244 (2.0) 223 (2.8) 170 (3.4)

16t059 22,355 151,673 54 (0.9) 35 (0.8) 11 (0.3)

298 (0.8) 270 (0.9) 203 (2.5)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total

sample sizes, due to missing data. RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error

of the estimate (the true population values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with %~o certainty).

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

●

●

●

Appendix B . . . ...145
m Table B1.2

libA: Percentages and average quantitative proficiencies of older

and younger adults, by self-reported literacy proficiencies

AREA OF LITERACY/ SELF-REPORTED PROFICIENCY

AGE Not well or

Very well Well not at all

WGT N RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE)

n (/1 ,000) PROF (SE) PROF (SE) PROF (SE)

Understand

60 and older 3,709 39,417 78 ( 1.0) 19 ( 0.9) 3 ( 0.3)

246 ( 2.2) 216 ( 3.8) 92 ( 6.9)!

16t059 22,367 151,788 82 ( 0.5) 14 ( 0.5) 3 ( 0.2)

292 ( 0.6) <252 ( 2.1) 133 ( 2.9)

Speak

60 and older 3,708 39,385 68 ( 1.1) 28 ( 1.1) 4 ( 0.5)

246 ( 2.1) 228 ( 3.8) 114 (10.2)!

16t059 22,360 151,696 73 ( 0.9) 23 ( 0.8) 4 ( 0.2)

294 ( 0.6) 263 ( 1.5) 145 ( 2.7)

Read

60 and older 3,701 39,319 66 ( 1.1) 25 ( 1.0) 8 ( 0.7)

254 ( 2.1) 227 ( 3.7) 121 ( 5.8)

16t059 22,340 151,608 72 ( O.~) - 22 ( 0.6) 7 ( 0.3)

297 ( 0.6) 263 ( 1.3) 157 ( 2.7)

Write

60 and older 3,692 39,219 60 ( 1.4) 28 ( 1.2) 12 ( 1.0)

255 ( 2.5) 234 ( 3.4) 149 ( 5.0)

16t059 22,307 151,429 65 ( 0.8) 26 ( 0.7) 9 ( 0.3)

298 ( 0.6) 271 ( 1.4) 182 ( 2.6)

Do arithmetic

60 and older 3,706 39,350 50 ( 1 .2) 33 ( 1 .0) 17 ( 0.9)

260 ( 2.5) 237 ( 3.4) 161 ( 4.7)

16t059 22,355 151,673 54 ( 0.9) 35 ( 0.8) 11 ( 0.3)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the

total sample sizes, due to mi&.ing data. RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) =

standard error of the estimate. The true population values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with %~0 certainty.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

*● ☛

146 . . . . . . Appendix B
?

- Table BZ 1

.

F’A

Awh=-

‘Ak=- Percentages and average literacy proficiencies of older and younger

adults by race/ethnicity, by self-reported writing proficiency

AGE SELF-REPORTED PROFICIENCY

RACEETHNICITY

LITERACY SCALE Very well

Not well or

Well not at all

WGT N RPCT ( SE) RPCT ( SE) RPCT ( SE)

n (/1 ,000) PROF ( SE) PROF ( SE) PROF ( SE)

60 and older

White 2,744 32,898 64 ( 1.6) 28 ( 1.5) 9 ( 0.9)

Prose 261 ( 2.1) 236 ( 2.8) 183 ( 4.0)

Document 245 ( 2.1) 223 ( 2.9) 182 ( 4.7)

Quantitative 260 ( 2.6) 240 ( 3.4) 182 ( 5.6)

Black 626 3,350 45 ( 2.2) 35 ( 2.4) 20 ( 2.0)

Prose 214 ( 4.6) 202 ( 3.8) 137 ( 7.4)!

Document 198 ( 4.1) 191 ( 3.7) 129 ( 5.7)!

Quantitative 191 ( 5.6) 194 ( 5.9) 104 ( 8.2)!

Hispanic 263 1,997 24 ( 3.4) 22 ( 3.3)

Prose

54 ( 3.1)

249 ( 9.81! 201 ( 9.8)! 138 ( 8.2)

Document 230 (1 1.2)! -197 ( 7.7)! 121 ( 6.3)

Quantitative 244 (14.7)! 214 ( 6.5)! 105 ( 8.8)

16t059

White 14,493 111,570 70 ( 1 .0) 26 ( 0.9) 4 ( 0.2)

Prose 308 ( 0.8) 282 ( 1.5) 228 ( 3.4)

Document 304 ( 0.8) 279 ( 1.5) 231 ( 3.7)

Quantitative 307 ( 0.8) 284 ( 1.6) 233 ( 3.6)

Black 4,315 17,776 61 ( 0.9) 32 ( 0.9) 7 ( 0.4)

Prose 258 ( 1.6) 236 ( 2.1) 166 ( 4.6)

Document 251 ( 1.4) 231 ( 1.9) 167 ( 4.9)

Quantitative 246 ( 1.8) 225 ( 2.1) 161 ( 5.0)

Hispanic 2,852 16,434 40 ( 1 .5) 22 ( 1 .0) 37 ( 1.5)

Prose 276 ( 2.2) 242 ( 2.7) 144 ( 2.9)

Document 274 ( 2.3) 242 ( 2.8) 146 ( 3.2)

Quantitative 271 ( 2.3) 242 ( 3.0) 146 ( 3.4)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total

sample sizes, due to missing data. RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard

error of the estimate. The true Docmlation values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95~0

certainty.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of \his statistic cannot be determined accurately.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

●

●

●

Appendix B 147
P

_ Table 62.2

Fa

//IN\-

‘A-w Percentages and average literacy proficiencies of older and younger

adults by race/ethnicity, by self-reported arithmetic proficiency

AGE SELF-REPORTED PROFICIENCY

RACE/ETHNICITY

LITERACY SCALE Very well Well

Not well or

not at all

WGT N RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE)

n (/1 ,000)

RPCT (SE)

PROF (SE) PROF (SE) PROF (SE)

60 and older

White 2,756 33,024 55 ( 1 .3) 33 ( 1.1) 12 ( 0.8)

Prose 261 ( 2.0) 243 ( 2.7) 200 ( 5.6)

Document 247 ( 2.0) 228 ( 2.9) 190 ( 4.8)

Quantitative 265 ( 2.6) 244<( 3.3) 186 ( 5.8)

Black 628 3,355 31 ( 1.7) 38 ( 2.4) 30 ( 2.2)

Prose 215 ( 6.7)! 203 ( 4.4) 161 ( 6.8)!

Document 202 ( 5.8)! 193 ( 3.3) 146 ( 4.8)!

Quantitative 203 ( 9.3)! 190 ( 6.0) 126 ( 7.7)!

Hispanic 263 1,997 23 ( 2.8) 23 ( 3.3) 54 ( 3.6)

Prose 244 (1 0.6)! 191 (10.6)! 147 ( 9.0)

Document 231 ( 8.1)! - 18!% (12.4)! 126 ( 6.6)

Quantitative 247 (12.3)! 199 (13.3)! 111 ( 8.8)

16t059

White 14,518 111,728 58 ( 1.1) 34 ( 0.9) 7 ( 0.4)

Prose 311 ( 0.9) 287 ( 1.3) 249 ( 2.5)

Document 307 ( 1 .0) 282 ( 1.3) 245 ( 2.5)

Quantitative 313 ( 0.9) 285 ( 1.3) 241 ( 2.7)

Black 4,328 17,813 45 ( 1 .0) 43 ( 1.1) 12 ( 0.4)

Prose 259 ( 2.0) 243 ( 1.8) 195 ( 4.5)

Document 253 ( 1.8) 237 ( 1.5) 192 ( 3.8)

Quantitative 251 ( 2.0) 231 ( 1.6) 179 ( 4.1)

Hispanic 2,862 16,483 36 ( 1.6) 30 ( 1 .5) 34 ( 1.6)

Prose 272 ( 2.3) 234 ( 2.5) 150 ( 2.9)

Document 271 ( 2.3) 235 ( 2.7) 149 ( 3.0)

Quantitative 271 ( 2.5) 233 ( 2.6) 147 ( 2.9)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total sample

sizes, due to missing data. RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the

estimate. The true population values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95°A certainty.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

●

✎☛

148 . . . . . . Appendix B
;>

~ Table B2.3

Fa

dLANL-

‘:M= Percentages and average literacy proficiencies of older and

younger adults by sex, by self-reported writing proficiency

AGE

SEXI

LITERACY SCALE

60 and older

Male

Prose

Document

Quantitative

Female

Prose

Document

Quantitative

16t059

Male

Prose

Document

Quantitative

Female

Prose

Document

Quantitative

SELF-REPORTED PROFICIENCY

Not well or

Very well Well not at all

WGT N RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE)

n (/1 ,000) PROF (SE) PROF (SE) PROF (SE)

1,389 17,421 56 (2.2)

264 (3.1)

251 (2.7)

272 (3.4)

2,298 21,76 6 62 (1 .3)

253 (2.0)

235 (2.4)

243 (2.9)

0,355 74,501 59 (0.9)

300 (0.8) -

298 (0.9)

304 (1 .2)

1,919 76,695 71 (0.8)

300 (0.9)

293 (0.8)

293 (0.8)

28 (1 .8)

231 (3.8)

222 (3.8)

4?48 (4.5)

28 (1 .2)

230 (3.2)

215 (3.0)

224 (4.1)

31 (0.8)

’272 (1 .5)

272 (1 .5)

278 (1 .6)

22 (0.8)

268 (1 .8)

262 (1 .7)

262 (1 .8)

16 (1.5)

159 (6.0)

164 (4.5)

160 (6.3)

10 (0.9)

160 (4.6)!

?49 (5.4)!

135 (5.7)!

11 (0.4)

186 (3.0)

189 (2.8)

192 (3.2)

7 (0.3)

168 (3.8)

169 (4.2)

167 (4.2)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the

total sample sizes, due to missing data. RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) =

standard error of the estimate. The true population values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample

estimates with 95% certainty.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

● ✎

●

Appendix B . . . ...149
~.

~ TABLEB24.

Fa

/mkS-

‘L.s Percentages and average literacy proficiencies of older and

younger adults by sex, by self-reported arithmetic proficiency

AGE SELF-REPORTED PROFICIENCY

SEXI Not well or

LITERACY SCALE Very well Well not at all

WGT N RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE)

n (/1 ,000) PROF (SE) PROF (SE) PROF (SE)

60 and older

Male 1,393 17,475 56 (1 .8) 30 (1 .7) 14 (1.1)

Prose 261 (3.1) 229 (4.0) 163 (6.9)

Document 251 (2.7) 220 (3.7) 161 (5.5)

Quantitative 273 (3.6) 242 (4:6) 154 (8.2)

Female 2,308 21,843 46 (1 .5) 36 (1 .4) 19 (1 .2)

Prose 253 (2.5) 241 (2.7) 191 (4.3)

Document 237 (2.8) 225 (3.3) 175 (3.8)

Quantitative 247 (3.4) 234 (3.6) 165 (4.5)

16t059

Male 10.369 74,563 56 (1 .0) 34 (tJ.8) 10 (0.4)

Prose 300 (1 .0) ’271 (1 .4) 192 (3.5)

Document 299 (1 .0) 269 (1 .2) 192 (3.6)

Quantitative 307 (1 .2) 273 (1 .3) 190 (3.6)

Female 11,953 76,878 52 (1 .0) 36 (0.9) 12 (0.4)

Prose 304 (1 .2) 278 (1 .3) 216 (2.8)

Document 298 (1 .2) 271 (1 .3) 212 (2.8)

Quantitative 300 (1 .2) 270 (1.2) 205 (2.7)

n = sample size WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add

up to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency

estimate (SE) = standard error of the estimate. The true population values can be said to be within 2 standard

errors of the sample estimates with 95°A certainty.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

150 . . . . . . Appendix B
- Table B41.

Fa

/2N\-

~:k= Percentages and average document proficiencies of older and

younger adults by reliance on various sources of information

SOURCE/

AGE

AMOUNT OF INFORMATION

A lot Some A little None

WGT N RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE)

n (/1 ,000) PROF (SE) PROF (SE) PROF (SE) PROF (SE)

Newspapers

60 and older 3,693 39,383 53 ( 1 .0) 27 ( 0.9) 11 ( 0.5) 9 ( 0.6)

239 ( 1.7) 226 ( 2.1) 199 ( 4.7) 166 ( 4.8)

16t059 21,231 151,022 41 ( 0.6) 36 ( 0.5) 17 ( 0.4) 6 ( 0.2)

288 ( 0.9) 28! ( 1.0) 268 ( 1.5)

Magazines

223 ( 2.7)

60 and older 3,684 39,266 22 ( 0.9) 35 ( 0.9) 21 ( 0.8) 22 ( 0.9)

239 ( 2.8) 241 ( 1.9) 226 ( 2.8) 184 ( 3.2)

16t059 21,220 150,914 17 ( 0.4) 41 ( 0.5) 29 ( 0.5) 13 ( 0.3)

287 ( 1.6) 288 ( 0.8) 280 ( 1.2) 233 ( 1.8)

Radio

60 and older 3,692 39,323 28 ( 1.0) 28 ( 0.8) 23 ( 0.8) 20 ( 1 .0)

217 ( 2.3) 233 ( 2.7) 233 ( 2.9) 213 ( 3.2)

16t059 21,217 150,940 38 ( 0.5) - 35 ( 0.5) 21 ( 0.4) 6 ( 0.2)

275 ( 1.1) 285 ( 1.0) 278 ( 1.2) 252 ( 2.7)

Television

60 and older 3,695 39,374 74 ( 1.1) 19 ( 0.8) 5 ( 0.4) 2 ( 0.3)

223 ( 1.6) 236 ( 2.8) 221 ( 7.8)! 180 (1 3.2)!

16t059 21,224 150,975 65 ( 0.6) 25 ( 0.5) 9 ( 0.3) 2 ( 0.2)

272 ( 0.7) 291 ( 1.2) 284 ( 2.1) 279 ( 5.5)

Family members

60 and older 3,686 39,288 20 ( 0.8) 40 ( 1 .0) 28 ( 0.8) 13 ( 0.7)

214 ( 3.3) 231 ( 2.4) 235 ( 2.1) 199 ( 3.9)

16t059 21,215 150,937 23 ( 0.4) 45 ( 0.5) 26 ( 0.4) 5 ( 0.2)

269 ( 1.6) 285 ( 0.9) 282 ( 1.2) 242 ( 2.7)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopuiations may not add up to the total

sample sizes, due to missing data. RPCT = row percentage estimate”; PROF = average “proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard

error of the estimate. The true population values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95%

certainty.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Surveyj 1992.

●

●

●

151
_ Table B4.2

FXI

Aik\-

‘A.m Percentages and average quantitative proficiencies of older and

younger adults, by reliance on various sources of information

SOURCE/

AGE

AMOUNT OF INFORMATION

A lot Some A little None

WGT N RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE)

n (/1 ,000)

RPCT (SE)

PROF (SE) PROF (SE) PROF (SE) PROF (SE)

Newspapers

60 and older 3,693 39,383 53 ( 1 .0) 27 ( 0.9) 11 ( 0.5) 9 ( 0.6)

254 ( 2.2) 242 ( 2.5) 200 ( 6.5) 154 ( 6.6)

16t059 21,231 151,022 41 ( 0.6) 36 ( 0.5) 17 ( 0.4) 6 ( 0.2)

292 ( 0.9) 282 ( \O.9) 269 ( 1.4) 222 ( 3.0)

Magazines

60 and older 3,684 39,266 22 ( 0.9) 35 ( 0.9) 21 ( 0.8) 22 ( 0.9)

249 ( 3.3) 258 ( 2.4) 238 ( 4.3) 186 ( 4.2)

16t059 21,220 150,914 17 ( 0.4) 41 ( 0.5) 29 ( 0.5) 13 ( 0.3)

287 ( 1.6) 290 ( 0.9) 283 ( 1.2) 236 ( 1.8)

Radio

60 and older 3,692 39,323 28 ( 1.0) 28 ( 0.8) 23 ( 0.8) 20 ( 1.0)

226 ( 3.2) 246 ( 3.8) 248 ( 4.0) 222 ( 4.2)

16t059 21,217 150,940 38 ( 0.5) - 35 (- 0.5) 21 ( 0.4) 6 ( 0.2)

277 ( 1.0) 288 ( 0.9) 282 ( 1.3) 258 ( 2.8)

Television

60 and older 3,695 39,374 74 ( 1.1) 19 ( 0.8) 5 ( 0.4) 2 ( 0.3)

234 ( 2.1) 250 ( 3.8) 230 (1 0.0)! 172 (19.6)!

16t059 21,224 150,975 65 ( 0.6) 25 ( 0.5) 9 ( 0.3) 2 ( 0.2)

274 ( 0.7) 295 ( 1.2) 288 ( 2.0) 286 ( 5.9)

Family members

60 and older 3,686 39,288 20 ( 0.8) 40 ( 1 .0) 28 ( 0.8) 13 ( 0.7)

215 ( 3.9) 245 ( 3.1) 252 ( 3.2) 208 ( 5.8)

16t059 21,215 150,937 23 ( 0.4) 45 ( 0.5) 26 ( 0.4) 5 ( 0.2)

270 ( 1.6) 287 ( 0.7) 286 ( 1.4) 247 ( 2.9)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to the total

sample sizes, due to missing data. RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard

error of the estimate. The true population values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with $ls~o

certainty.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

●

152 Appendix B
_.- Table B4.3

Fa

d/4K\-

‘&’= Average literacy proficiencies of older and younger

adults, by frequency of writing for personal use

TYPE OF WRITING/

LITERACY SCALE/ FREQUENCY

AGE Often Occasionally Rarely

WGT N

n (/1 ,000) PROF (SE) PROF (SE) PROF (SE)

Letters: Prose

60 and older 3,693 39,361 265 (2.1) 250 (2.7) 221 (2.3)

16t059 21,214 150,896 294 (0.9) 291 (1.6) 268 (0.8)

Reports Prose \

60 and older 3,684 39,290 270 (5.0)! 263 (5.3)! 234 (1 .7)

16t059 21,194 150,773 290 (1 .4) 292 (1 .7) 279 (0.7)

Forms

Prose

60 and older 3,690 39,326 261 (2.7) 261 (2.9) 225 (2.0)

16t059 21,208 150,839 296 (0.8) 293 (1 .0) 265 (1 .2)

Document

60 and older 3,690 39,326 251 (2.4) * 248 (3.1) 211 (2.1)

16t059 21,208 150,839 291 (0.9) 289 (1 .0) 262 (1 .2)

Quantitative

60 and older 3,690 39,326 266 (3.0) 268 (3.4) 219 (2.8)

16t059 21,208 150,839 295 (0.9) 292 (1.1) 263 (1.1)

n = sam~le size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add

up to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error

of the estimate. The true population values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates

with 95% certainty.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

● ✎

153
_ Table B4.4

Fa

/!z4Nz-

‘Ak= Percentages and average quantitative proficiencies of older

and younger adults, by frequency of personal arithmetic use

FREQUENCY

AGE Often Occasionally Rarely

WGT N RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE)

n (/1 ,000) PROF (SE) PROF (SE) PROF (SE)

60 and older 3.674 39,148 65 (1 .2) 10 (0.9) 25 (1 .0)

257 (1 .9) 229 (5.2) 181 ( 4.2)

<

16t059 21,209 150,918 82 (0.4) 8 (0.3) 10 (0.3)

290 (0.7) 260 (2.2) 220 (2.6)

n = sample size; WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpoDulations mav not add

up to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency

estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate. The true population values can be said to be within 2 standard

errors of the sample estimates with 9!5~0 certainty.

.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

●

154 . . . . . . Appendix B
>.

~ Table B4.5

Fa

‘~~== Average literacy proficiencies of older and

younger adults, by frequency of writing at work

TYPE OF WRITING/

LITERACY SCALE/

FREQUENCY

AGE Often Occasionally Rarely

WGT N

n (/1 ,000) PROF ( SE) PROF (SE) PROF (SE)

Letters: Prose

60 and older 1,389 12,991 279 (3.5) 258 (9.5)! 240 (3.9)

16t059 18,486 132,993 302 (0.8) 291 (2.4) 262 (1 .2)

Reports Prose

60 and older 1,388 12,989 280 (3.2) 277 (7.8)! 246 (3.3)

16t059 18,474 132,936 301 (1.1) 299 (2.2) 274 (0.9)

Forms

Prose

60 and older 1,389 12,991 274 (3.4) 277 (7.3)! 249 (3.2)

16t059 18,482 132,972 300 (0.9) 290 (1 .8) 271 (1.0)

Document

60 and older 1,389 12,991 258 (3.5) * 258 (6.9)! 237 (3.3)

16t059 18,482 132,972 296 (0.9) 288 (1 .6) 268 (1 .2)

Quantitative

60 and older 1,389 12,991 280 (4.1) 284 (6.9)! 253 (3.4)

16t059 18,482 132,972 301 (0.8) 291 (1.9) 270 (1 .0)

n = sample size WGT N = population size estimate / 1,000. The sample sizes for subpopulations may not add up to

the total sample sizes, due to missing data. PROF = average proficiency estimate; (SE) = standard error of the

estimate. The true population values can be said to be within 2 standard errors of the sample estimates with 95°%

certainty.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey, 1992.

●

●

●

Appendix B . . . ...155
~ Table 64.6 Fal +p Percentages and average quantitative proficiencies of older and

younger adults by frequency of arithmetic use at work

FREQUENCY

AGE Often Occasionally Rarely

WGT N RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE) RPCT (SE)

n (/1 ,000) PROF (SE) PROF (SE) PROF (SE)

60 and older 1,390 12,952 74 ( 1 .2) 5 ( 0.9) 21 ( 1.2)

278 ( 2.6) 279 (14.6)! 222 ( 6.9)

16t059 18,508 133,210 82 ( 0.4) 4 I 0.2) 13 ( 0.4)

294 ( 0.7) 268 ( 3.5) 243 ( 2.1)

n = sample size: WGT N = Modulation size estimate ,./ 1.000. The samole sizes for subootxdations .,, mav not add

up to the total sample sizes, due to missing data. RPCT = row percentage estimate; PROF = average proficiency

estimate; (SE) = standard error of the estimate. The true population values can be said to be within 2 standard

errors of the sample estimates with !%~o certainty.

! Interpret with caution. The variability of this statistic cannot be determined accurately.

.

Source: U.S. Depatiment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Adult Literacy Survey,

1992.

156 . . . . . . Appendix B
APPENDIX C

Overuiew of procedures

T

\

his appendix provides information about the methods and procedures used in

the National Adult Literacy Survey. The forthcoming technical report will

provide more extensive information about procedures. In addition, more detailed

information on the development of the background questionnaires and literacy

tasks can be found in Assessing Literacy. 1

.-

Sampling

The National and State Adult Literacy Surveys included the following three

components: a national household sample, 11 individual state household samples,

and a national prison sample. The national and state household components were

based on a four-stage stratified area sample with the following stages: the

selection of Primary Sampling Units (PSU5) consisting of counties or groups of

counties, the selection of segments consisting of census blocks or groups of

blocks, the selection of households, and the selection of age-eligible individuals.

One national area sample was drawn for the national component; 11 independent,

state-specific area samples were drawn for the 11 states participating in the state

component (i.e., California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, New Jersey, New

York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington.) The sample designs used for all

12 samples were similar, except for two principal differences. In the national

sample, Black and Hispanic respondents were sampled at a higher rate than the

remainder of the population in order to increase their representation in the

sample, whereas the state samples used no oversampling. Also, the target

population for the national sample consisted of adults 16 years of age or older,

whereas the target population for the state samples consisted of adults 16 to 64

years of age.

‘ A. Campbell, 1. Kirsch, and A. Kolstad. (1992), Assessing Literacy: The Fmmeu.wrk fw the National Adult

Literacy Suruey, Washington, DC: Government Printing Oflke.

●

Appendix C . . . . ..l57
..-

The sample designs for all 12 household samples involved four stages of

selection, each at a successively finer level of geographic detail. The first stage of

sampling invoh”ed the selection of PSUS, which consist of counties or groups of

counties. The PSUS were stratified on the basis of region, metropolitan status,

percent Black. percent Hispanic, and, whenever possible, per capita income. The

national component used the WE STAT 100 PSU master sample with the

Honolulu, Hawaii PSU added to the sample with certainty, to make 101 PSUS in

total. The national frame of PSUS was used to construct individual state frames

for the state component and a sample of eight to 12 PSUS was selected within

each of the given states. All PSUS were selected with probability proportional to

the PSU’S 1990 population.

The second stage of sampling involved the selection of segments (within the

selected PSUS) \vhich consist of census blocks or groups of census blocks. The

segments were selected with probability proportional to size where the measure

of size for a segment was a function of the number of year-round housing units

within the segment. The oversampling of Black and Hispanic respondents for the

national component was carried out at the segment level, where segments were

classified as high minority (segments with more than 25 percent Black or

Hispanic population) or not high minority. The measure of size for high mmority

segments was defined as the number of White non-Hispanic households plus

three times the number of Black or Hispanic households. High minority segments

were therefore oversampled at up to three times the rate of comparable, nonhighminority segments. The measure of size for nonminority segments was

simply the number of year-round housing units within the segment, as was the

measure of size for all segments in the state components. one in 7 of the national

component segments was selected at random to be included in a “no incentive”

sample. Respondents from the remaining segments in the national component

received a monetary incentive for participation, as did respondents in the state

component. (Respondents from the “no incentive” segments are not included in

the household sample of this report. )

The third stage of sampling involved the selection of households within the

selected segments. Westat field staff visited all selected segments and prepared

lists of all housing units within the boundaries of each segment as determined by

the 1990 census block maps. The lists were used to construct the sampling frame

for households. Households were selected with equal probability within each

segment, except for White non-Hispanic households in high minority segments in

the national component, which were subsampled so that the sampling rates for

White non-Hispanic respondents would be about the same overall.

The fourth stage of sampling involved the selection of one or two adults

within each selected household. A list of age-eligible household members (16 and

,

158 . . . . . . Appendix C
Weighting

older for the national component, 16 to 64 for the state component) was

constructed for each selected household. One person was selected at randotn

from households with fewer than four eligible members: two persons were

selected from households with four or more eligible members. The interviewers,

who were instructed to list the eligible household members in descending order

by age, then identified one or two household members to interview, based on

computer-generated sampling messages that were attached to each questionnaire

in advance.

The sample design for the prison component involved two stages of

selection. The first stage of sampling involved the selection of state or federal

correctional facilities with probability proportional to size, where the measure of

size for a given facility was equal to the inmate population. The second stage

involved the selection of inmates within each selected facility. Inmates were

selected with a probability inversely proportional to their facility’s inmate

population (up to a maximum of 22 interviews in a facility) so that the product of

the first and second stage probabilities would be constant.

Full sample and replicate weights were calculated for each record in order to

facilitate the calculation of unbiased estimates and their standard errors.

The full sample and replicate weights for the household components were

calculated as the product of the base weight for a record and a compositing and

raking factor. Demographic variables critical to the weighting were recoded and

imputed, if necessary, prior to the calculation of base weights.

The base \veight was calculated as the reciprocal of the final probability of

selection for a respondent, which reflected all stages of sampling. The base

weight was then multiplied by a compositing factor which combined the national

and state component data in an optimal manner, considering the differences in

sample design, sample size, and sampling error between the two components.

Twelve different compositing factors were used, one for each of the 11

participating states, and a pseudo factor (equal to one) for all national component

records from outside the 11 participating states. The product of the base weight

and compositing factor for a given record was the composite weight.

The composite weights were raked so that several totals calculated with the

resulting full sample weights would agree with the 1990 census totals, adjusted

for undercount. The cells used for the raking were defined to the finest

combination of age, education level, race, and ethnicity that the data would allow.

Raking adjustment factors were calculated separately for each of the 11 states and

then for the remainder of the United States. The above procedures were repeated

,

,

Appendix C . . . ...159
for 60 strategically constructed subsets of the sample to create a set of replicate

weights to be used for variance estimation using the jackknife method. The

replication scheme was designed to produce stable estimates of standard errors

for national estimates as well as for the 11 individual states.

The full sample and replicate weights for the incarcerated component were

calculated as the product of the base weight for a record and a nonrespcmse and

raking factor. The base weight was calculated as the reciprocal of the final

probability of selection for a respondent, which reflected both stages of sampling.

The base weights were then nonresponse adjusted to reflect both facility and

inmate nonresponse. The resulting mmresponse adjusted weights were then raked

to agree with independent estimates for certain subgroups of the population.

22ckgmund Questionnaires

One of the primary goals of the National Adult Literacy Survey is to relate the

literacy skills of the nation’s adults to a variety of demographic characteristics

and explanatory variables. Accordingly, survey respondents were asked to

complete background questionnaires designed togather information on their

characteristics and experiences. To ensure standardized administration, the

questionnaires were read to the respondent by trained interviewers.

As recommended by the Literacy Definition Committee, the development of

the background questionnaire was guided by two goals: to ensure the usefulness

of the data by addressing issues of concern, and to ensure comparability with the

young adult and Department of Labor (DOL) job-seeker surveys by including

some of the same questions. With these goals in mind, the background

questionnaire addressed the following areas:

general and language background

educational background and experiences

political and social participation

labor force participation

literacy activities and collaboration

demographic information

Questions in the first category asked survey participants to provide

information on their country of birth, their education before coming to the

United States, language(s) spoken by others at home, language(s) spoken while

growing up, language(s) spoken now, participation in English as a Second

.

160 . . . . . . Appendix C
-.

Language courses, and self-evaluated proficiency in English and other

languages. This information makes it possible to interpret the performance

results in light of the increasing racial/ethnic and cultural diversity in the

United States.

The questions on educational background and experiences asked

respondents to provide information on the highest grade or level of education

they had completed; their reasons for not completing high school; whether or not

they had completed a high school equivalency program: their educational

aspirations; the types and duration of training they had received in addition to

traditional schooling; the school, home, or work contexts in which they learned

various literacy skills; and any physical, mental, or health conditions they have

that may affect their literacy skills. Information on respondents’ education is

particularly important because level of education is known to be a predictor of

performance on the prose, document, and quantitative literacy scales.

The questions on political and social participation asked participants about

the sources from which they get information, their television viewing practices,

their use of library services, and whether or not they had voted in a recent

election. Because an informed citizenry is essenlial tolhe democratic process,

information was collected on how adults keep abreast of current events and

public affairs. Information on adults’ use of library services is also important,

because libraries promote reading and often provide literacy programs. These

questions make it possible to explore connections between adults’ activities and

their demonstrated literacy proficiencies.

The questions on labor force participation asked participants to provide

information on their employment status, weekly wages or salary, weeks of

employment in the past year, annual earnings, and the industry or occupation in

which they work(ed). These questions respond to concerns that the literacy skills

of our present and future work force are inadequate to compete in the global

economy or to cope with our increasingly technological society. The questions

were based on labor force concepts widely used in economic surveys and permit

the exploration of a variety of labor market activity and experience variables,

Questions on literacy activities and collaboration covered several important

areas. Some of the questions focused on the types of materials that adults read,

such as newspapers, magazines, books, and brief documents, making it possible

to investigate the relationship between reading practices and demonstrated

Iiteracyproflciencies. Another set of questions asked respondents about the

frequency of particular reading, writing, and mathematics activities. Respondents

were asked to provide information on their newspaper, magazine, and book

reading practices; reading, writing, and mathematics activities engaged in for

personal use and for work; and assistance received from others with particular

literacy tasks.

●

9

Appendix C 161
Finally, the suwey collected information on respondents’ race/ethnici~’,

age, and gender. as well as the educational attainl]]ent of their parents. their

marital status, the number of people in their family lvho \vere emplo~ed fldltime and part-time, sources of income other than enlplovment. and falnilv and

personal income from all sources. This demographic information enabled

researchers to analyze the, characteristics of the adult population, as well as to

investigate the literacy proficiencies of major stibpopulations of interest, such

as racia~ethnic groups, males and females, and various age cohorts.

Because some questions included in the household survey were

inappropriate for the prison population, a revised version of the background

questionnaire was developed for these respondents. Most of the questions in the

household background questionnaire on general and language background and on

literacy activities and collaboration were included. Many questions concerning

education, political and social participation, labor force participation, family

income, and employment status were not appropriate, however, and were

omitted. In their place, relevant questions were incorporated from the 1991

Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities, sponsored by the Bureau of

Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice. -

Literacy Assessment Booklets

The National Adult Literacy Survey measures literacy along three scales —

prose, document, and quantitative — composed of literacy tasks that simulate the

types of demands that adults encounter in everyday life. The literacy tasks

administered in this survey included 8 I ne~v tasks as well as 85 tasks that were

included in the previous young adult and job-seeker surveys. The

administration of a common pool of tasks in each of the three surveys allows for

valid comparisons of results across time for different populations.

The new literacy tasks developed for the survey serve to refine and extend

the three existing literacy scales and provide a better balance of tasks across the

three scales. The framework used to develop these tasks reflects research on the

processes and strategies that respondents used to perform the literacy tasks

administered in the young adult survey. In creating the new tasks, one goal was to

include diverse stimulus materials and to create questions and directives that

represent the broad range of skills and processes inherent in the three domains of

literacy. Another goal was to create tasks that reflect the kinds of reading,

writing, and computational demands that adults encounter in work, community,

and home settings. Because the tasks are meant to simulate real-life literacy

activities, they are open-ended — that is, individuals must produce a written or

.

162 . . . . . . Appendix C
oral response, rather than simply choose the correct response from a list of

options.

The new literacy tasks were developed with attention to the following

elements:

● the structure of the stimulus material — for example, exposition,

narrative, table, graph, Imap, or advertisement

c the content represented ancVor the context from \vhich the stimulus is

drawn — for example, work, home, or community

. the nature of what the individual is asked to do with the material —

that is, the purpose for using the material — which in turn guides the

strategies needed to complete the task successfully

These factors, operating in various combinations, affect the difficulty of a task

relative to others administered in the survev.

The printed and written materials selected for the survey reflect a variety of

structures and formats. Most of the prose materials are expositoy— that is, they

describe, define, or inform — since most of the prose~hat adults read is

expository however, narratives and poetry are included as well. The prose

selections include an array of linguistic structures, ranging from texts that are

highly organized both topically and visually, to those that are loosely organized.

Texts of varying lengths were chosen, ranging from full-page magazine

selections to short newspaper articles. All prose materials included in the survey

were reproduced in their original format.

The document materials represent a wide variety of structures, including

tables, charts and graphs, forms, and maps. Tables include matrix documents in

which information is arrayed in rows and columns (for example, bus or airplane

schedules, lists, or tables of numbers). Documents categorized as charts and

graphs include pie charts, bar graphs, and line graphs. Forms are documents

that must be filled in, while other structures include advertisements and

coupons.

Quantitative tasks require the reader to perform arithmetic operations using

numbers that are embedded in print. Since there are no materials that are unique

to quantitative tasks, they were based on prose materials and documents. Most

quantitative tasks were, in fact, based on documents.

Adults do not read printed or written materials in a vacuum. Rather, they

read within a particular context or for a particular purpose. Accordingly, the

survey materials were chosen to represent a variety of contexts and contents. Six

such areas were identified: home and family, health and safety, community and

citizenship, consumer economics, work, and leisure and recreation. Efforts were

●

a

,

Appendix C . . . ...163
made to include as broad a range as possible and to select universal’ relevant

contexts and contents to ensure that the materials would be familiar to all

participants. In this way, the disadvantages for individuals \vith limited

background knowledge were minimized.

After the materials were selected, accompanying tasks were developed. The

tasks were designed to simulate the way in which people use various g,Tes of

materials and to require different strategies for successful performance. For both

the prose and document scales, the tasks can be organized into three major

categories: locating, integrating, and generating information. In the locating

tasks, readers were asked to match information given in a question or directive

with either literal or synonymous information in the text or document.

Integrating tasks asked the reader to incorporate two or more pieces of

information from different parts of the text or document. Generating tasks

required readers not only to process information located in different parts of the

material, but also to draw on their knowledge about a subject or to make broad,

text-based inferences.

Quantitative tasks required readers to perform one or more arithmetic

operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division) either singly or in

combination. The type of operation to be performed was sometimes obvious from

the wording of the question; in other tasks the readers had to infer which

operation was to be performed. In some cases the numbers required to perform

the operation could be easily identified; in others they were embedded in text.

Some quantitative tasks asked the reader to explain how he or she would solve a

problem, rather than to perform the actual calculation. The use of a simple, fourfunction calculator was required for some tasks.

No individual could be expected to respond to the entire set of 166 simulation

tasks administered as part of the survey. Accordingly, the survey design gave

each respondent a subset of the total pool of literacy tasks, while at the same time

ensuring that each of the 166 tasks was administered to a nationally

representative sample of the adult population. Literacy tasks were assigned to

blocks or sections that couId be completed in about 15 minutes, and these blocks

were then compiled into booklets so that each block appeared in each position

(first, middle, and last) and each block was paired with every other block.

Thirteen blocks of simulation tasks were assembled into 26 booklets, each of

which could be completed in about 45 minutes. During a personal interview, each

participant was asked to complete one booklet of literacy tasks and the

background questionnaire, which required approximately 20 minutes.

,0

164 . . . . . . Appendix C
, ,:

For the national and state samples, .24 field supervisors, .24 field editors, and

421 field interviewers were recruited and trained in January and February of

1992. The 24 supervisors were trained first at a session in Bethesda. Maryland.

The seven-day program included the intemtiewer training. Additionally, Westat

provided training specific to supervisory responsibilities, including the use of

Westat’s Automated Survey Control System, a computer-based system for

managing the data collection effort. Finally, supervisors and editors were trained

to perform an item-by-item edit for each data collection instrument received from

the field interviewers.

After the training offered in Bethesda, interviewers attended training

sessions geographically closest to their homes, either San Francisco (January 31-

Februa~ 2) or Dallas (February 7-9). Four training groups were formed at each

of the two training sites. Each group was led by a Westat home office field

manager. Within each of the four groups, the trainees were divided into “learning

communities” with approximately 18 interviewers each. Each community was

led by the field supervisor who would supervise ~he in~erviewers during the data

collection phase.

The training program was modeled closely after Westat’s general approach

for training field staff. This approach uses a mix of techniques to present study

material, focusing heavily on trainee participation and practice. The training

program was standardized with verbatim scripts and a detailed agenda to ensure

comparability in presentation across groups.

The key training topics were the data collection instruments — the

household screener, the background questionnaire, and the interview guide and

literacy exercise booklet. The majority of training time was devoted to

instructions for administering these documents. In addition, sessions were used

to present instructional material on gaining respondent cooperation, keeping

records of nonresponse cases, editing completed work, and completing

administrative forms. A bilingual field supervisor provided Spanish speaking

interviewers with training on the Spanish translations of the screener and

background questionnaires.

Prior to project-spe~ific training, new interviewers attended an additional

one-half day of training on general interviewing techniques. Interviewers selected

to work on the prison sample received an additional day of training on interview

procedures unique to that sample.

.

Appendix C . . . ...165
Data collection instruments included the screener, lvhich was designed to

enumerate household members and select survey respondents, t}le background

questionnaire, and the literacy exercise booklets. Interviewers were given their

first assignments and began work immediately after training. The interviewer was

given a call record folder and screener for each sampled dwelling unit in his or

her assignment. A computer-generated label attached to the front of each folder

and screener provided the case identification number, address, and assigned

exercise booklet number. Additionally, interviewers were provided with all other

field materials necessary to conduct interviews and meet reporting requirements.

Case assignments were made by the field supervisors, who also mailed

letters to households about one week before the interviewers planned to contiact

the household. When making contact, the interviewer first verified that the

address was in the sample and the unit was, in fact, an occupied dwelling. If the

unit did not meet the definition of a year-round housing unit or was vacant, or for

some other reason the interviewer was unable to complete a screener at an

assigned address, she or he documented the situation i? a noninterview report

form.

The interviewer introduced the study using an introduction printed on the

front of the screener. As part of the introduction, the interviewer indicated that if

someone from the household was selected for an interview, the respondent would

be paid $20 for participating. After introducing the study, the interviewer

proceeded to conduct the screening interview with any household member 16

years of age or older. If the household members spoke only a language other than

Spanish or English, the interviewer could obtain the services of a translator to

complete the screener interview.

The screener was used to collect names, relationships, sex, age and race/

ethnicity of all household members at the selected dwelling unit. For the national

sample, household members aged 16 years and older were eligible for

selection. For the state sample, however, household members 16 to 64 years of

age were eligible. In households with three or fewer eligible household

members, one was randomly selected for the interview. In households with

four or more eligibles, two respondents were selected. To select respondents,

interviewers first listed the names and ages (in descending age order) of all

eligible household members. They then referred to a sampling table which

selected one or two respondents from the household.

Once the Screener was completed and a respondent(s) selected, the

interviewer proceeded to administer the background questionnaire and the

exercise booklet. If the selected respondent was not available at the time the

.

.*

166 . . . . . . Appendix C
screener ~vas conducted, the interviewer returned to administer the

background questionnaire and exercise booklet, which \vere administered on

the same visit.

The background questionnaire took approximately 20 minutes to administer

and could be conducted in English or Spanish (using the Spanish printed ~’ersion)

only In the introduction to the background questionnaire, the respondent was

told that he or she would be given a check for $20 in appreciation of the time and

effort involved in completing the interview, questionnaires, and assessment. The

background questionnaire was divided into six sections and collected

demographic data as well as data on literacy-related behaviors. Respondents from

each of the 11 participating states were asked five state-specific questions, which

appeared at the end of the questionnaire.

When the background questionnaire was completed, the interviewer

administered the exercise booklet, which took approximately 45 minutes. There

were 26 different versions of the exercise booklet, and each version had a

corresponding interview guide, which the interviewer used to facilitate the

respondent’s completion of tasks in the booklet.

For the prison population, the interviewer informed the selected inmate

about the study using an introduction printed in the background questionnaire

since there was no screener. As part of the introduction, the interviewer indicated

that the inmate would receive a certificate of participation if he or she completed

the survey. Because of varying prison regulations, it was not possible to pay

inmates $2o for their participation and so they received the certificate. The

background questionnaire and exercise booklet were administered using the same

procedures as for the household population.

Response Rates

Since there were three instruments — screener, background questionnaire,

and exercise booklet — required for the administration of the survey, it was

possible for a household or respondent to refuse to participate at the time of

the administration of any one of these instruments. Thus, response rates were

calculated for each of the three instruments. For the prison sample there were

only two points at which a respondent could refuse — at the administration of

either the background questionnaire or exercise booklet. The response rates

presented below reflect the percentage of those who had the opportunity to

participate at each stage of the survey. The response rates for the national

household and prison samples are as follows.

● ✎

●

Appendix C . . . . ..167
Response Rates

Instrument National Prison

Screener 89.1% N/A

Background Questionnaire 81.0% 85.7%

Exercise Booklet 95.8% 96.1%

Data Collection Quality Control

Several quality control procedures relating to data collection were used. These

included the interviewer field edit, a complete edit of all documents by a trained

field editor, validation of 10 percent of each interviewer’s close-out work, and

field observation of both supervisors and interviewers.

At the interviewer training session, interviewers were instructed on

procedures for performing a field edit of all data collection documents. The main

purpose of this edit was to catch and corrector explain any errors or omissions in

recording, to learn from mistakes so they were not repeated, and to remove stray

marks and completely fill in bubbles on the documents-that were to be optically

scanned.

Additionally, a complete edit was performed on all documents by a trained

field editor. An item-by-item review was performed on each document, and each

error was fully documented on an edit form. The supervisor reviewed the results

of the edit with the interviewer during his or her weekly telephone conference.

Validation is the quality control procedure used to veri~ that an interview

was conducted and it took place at the correct address and according to specified

procedures, or that nonresponse statuses (e.g., refusals, vacancies, language

problems) were accurately reported by the interviewers. Interviewers knew that

their work would be validated but did not know to what extent or which cases. A

10 percent subsample of dwelling units were selected and flagged in the

supervisor’s log and in the automated survey control system (ASCS). The

supervisors performed validation interviews by telephone if a phone number was

available. otherwise, validation was performed in person by the supervisor or

by another interviewer.

Field observations of both supervisors and interviewers were performed

by Westat field management staff. One purpose of the interviewer observation

was to provide home office staff with an opportunity to observe effectively both

performance of field procedures and respondents’ reactions to the survey.

Another purpose was to provide feedback to weak interviewers when there was

concern about their skills ador performance. In addition to in-person

observations, interviewers were required to tape record one complete interview

●

168 . . . . . . Appendix C
:.

and assessment. The field supervisor selected the particular case in advance

and listened to the tape to “observe” each interviewer.

Finally, nine of the 24 supervisors \vere visited by field management staff

and evaluated on their editing, coding, office organization, ability to maintain upto-date records on production data, and supervision of interviewers.

Scoring Ihs LIkwxy Exercise f%ddets

As the first shipments of exercise booklets were received at ETS, copies were

made of actual responses to the tasks. These sample responses were then scored

by various staff, including the test developer and scoring supervisor, using either

the scoring guides developed for the young adult task,: or guides prepared during

the development of the new tasks. As the sample responses were scored,

adjustments were made to the scoring guides for the new tasks to reflect the kinds

of answers that the respondents were providing.

The sample papers comprised the training sets used to train a group of

readers who would score the exercise booklets. The purposes of the training were

to familiarize the readers with the scoring guides and.to ensure a high level of

agreement among the readers. Each task and its scoring guide were explained and

sample responses representative of the score points in the guide were discussed.

The readers then scored and discussed an additional 10 to 30 responses, After

group training had been completed, all the readers scored all the tasks in over a

hundred booklets to give them practice in scoring actual booklets, as well as an

opportunity to score more responses on a practice basis. A follow-up session was

then held to discuss responses on which readers disagreed. The entire training

process was completed in about four weeks.

Twenty percent of all the exercise booklets were subjected to a reader

reliability check, which entailed a scoring by a second reader. To prevent the

second reader from being influenced by the first reader’s scores, the first

reader masked the scores in every fifth booklet that he or she scored. These

booklets were then passed on for a second reader to score. When the second

reader had scored every item, the first reader’s scores were unmasked. If there

was a discrepancy between the two scores for any response, the scoring

supervisor reviewed the response and discussed it with the readers involved.

The statistic used to report inter-reader reliability is the percentage of

exact agreement — that is, the percentage of times the two readers agreed

exactly in their scores. There was a high degree of reader reliability across all

the tasks in the survey, ranging from a low of 88.1 percent to a high of 99.9

percent with an average agreement of 97 percent. For 133 out of 166 openended tasks, the agreement was above 95 percent,

●

●

✎

Appendix C . . . ...169
-.

.

The background questionnaire was designed to be read by a computerized

scanning device. For most questions, field personnel filled in ovals next to the

respondent’s answers. Open-ended items in the background questionnaire were

coded and the ovals filled in by ETS staff before they were shipped to the

scanning department. Responses on the screener were transferred to scannable

documents by ETS personnel when the check-in process \vas complete, and the

screener documents were batched and sent to the scanning department on a

regular basis. Exercise booklet scores were transferred to scannable documents

by the readers who scored the items, and these were also batched and sent to the

scanning department at regular intervals, The scanned data from screeners,

background questionnaires, and exercise booklets were transmitted to magnetic

tape, which was then sent to the ETS computer center. As each of the different

instruments were processed, the data were transferred to a database on the main

computer for editing.

Editing and Quaiity Controi .Z

Editing included an assessment of the internal logic and consistency of the data

received. For example, data were examined for nonexistent housing locations or

booklets, illogical or inconsistent responses, and multiple responses. Where

indicated, an error listing was generated and sent back to the processing area,

where the original document was retrieved and the discrepancies were

corrected. If resolution of a conflict in the data was not possible, the

information was left in the form in which it \vas received. Wherever possible,

however, conflicts were resolved. For example, in the infrequent cases in which

field personnel provided more than one response to a single-response

noncognitive item, specific guidelines were developed to incorporate these

responses consistently and accurately, The background questionnaires were

also checked to make sure that the skip patterns had been followed and all data

errors were resolved. In addition, a random set of booklets was selected to

provide an additional check on the accuracy of transferring information from

booklets and answer sheets to the database.

Scaiing

The results from the National Adult Literacy Survey are reported on three

scales established by the NAEP 1985 Young Adult Literacy Survey prose

literacy, document literacy, and quantitative literacy, With scaling methods, the

.

.

170, .,... Appendix C
;..

performance of a sample of examinees can be summarized on a series of

subscales even when different respondents have been administered different

items. Conventional scoring methods are not suited for assessments like the

national surve~-. Statistics based on the number of correct responses, such as

proportion of correct responses, are inappropriate for examinees who receive

different sets of items. Moreover, item-by-item reporting ignores similarities of

subgroup comparisons that are common across items. Finally using average

percent correct to estimate means of proficiencies ofexaminees within

subpopulations does not provide any other information about the distribution of

skills among the examinees.

The limitations of conventional scoring methods can be overcome by the

use of item response theory (IRT) scaling. When several items require similar

skills, the response patterns should have some uniformity. Such uniformity can

be used to characterize both examinees and items in terms of a common scale

attached to the skills, even when all examinees do not take identical sets of items.

Comparisons of items and examinees can then be made in reference to a scale,

rather than to percent correct. IRT scaling also allows distributions of groups of

examinees to be compared. *

Scaling was carried out separately for each of the three domains of literacy

(prose, document, and quantitative). The NAEP reading scale, used in the young

adult survey, was dropped because of its lack of relevance to the current NAEP

reading scale. The scaling model used for the national survey is the threeparameter logistic (3PL) model from item response theory.z It is a mathematical

model for estimating the probability that a particular person will respond

correctly to a particular item from a single domain of items. This probability is

given as a function of a parameter characterizing the proficiency of that person,

and three parameters characterizing the properties of that item.

Overview of Linking the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS)

Scales to the Young Adult Literacy Survey (YALS) Scales

Prose, document, and quantitative literacy results for the National Adult

Literacy Survey are reported on scales that were established in the Young Adult

Literacy Survey. For each scale, a number of new items unique to the national

survey were added to the item pool that was administered in the original young

adult survey. The NALS scales are linked to the YALS scales based upon the

commonality of the two assessments, namely, the original young adult survey

2A. Bimbaum. (1968). “Some Latent Trait Models.” In F. M. Lord and M. R. Novick, Statistical ‘I%eories of

Mental Test Scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. FM. Lard. (1980). Applications of Item Response Theoy

to Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

.

●

●

Appendix C 171
NALs

—

common items. Fifty-one percent of the items administered in the national

survey were common to young adult suney, The composition of the item pool

is presented in table C. 1.

A unidimensional IRT model like the three-parameter logistic model

employed in this study assumes that performance on all the itetns in a domain

can, for the most part, be accounted for by a single (unobservable) proficiency

variable. Subsequent IRT linking and scaling analyses treat each scale

separately, that is, a unique proficiency is assumed for each scale. As a result,

the linking of corresponding scales was carried out for each pair of scales

separately. The three steps used to link the scales are listed below.

1. Establish provisional IRT scales through common item parameter

calibration based on a pooling of the NALS and YALS items.

2. Estimate distribution of proficiencies on the provisional IRT scales using

“plausible value” methodology.

3. Align the NALS scale to the YALS scale by a linear transformation based

upon the commonality of proficiency distribution Qf the YALS sample.

Table C.1

Composition of the Item Pool for the National Adult Literacy Survey

Number of Items

NAIS

YALS items New items total

Prose 14 27 41

Document 56 25 81

Quantitative 15 28 43

Total 85 81 165

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Shitistics, National Adult Literacy

Survey, 1992.

Statistical Procedures

The statistical comparisons in this report were based on the t statistic.

Generally, whether or not a difference is considered significant is determined

by calculating a t value for the difference between a pair of means, or

proportions, and comparing this value to published tables of values at certain

e

.*

172 . . . . . . Appendix C
.’..

critical levels, called alpha levels. The alpha level is an a priori statement of the

probability of inferring that a difference exists when, in fact, it does not.

In order to make proper inferences and interpretations from the statistics,

sever-al points must be kept in mind. First, comparisons resulting in large t

statistics may appear to merit special note. This is not always the case, because

the size of the t statistic depends not only on the observed differences in means

or the percentage being compared, but also on the standard error of the

difference. Thus, a small difference between two groups with a much smaller

standard error could result in a large t statistic, but this small difference is not

necessarily noteworthy. Second, when multiple statistical comparisons are

made on the same data, it becomes increasingly likely that an indication of a

population difference is erroneous. Even when there is no difference in the

population, at an alpha level of .05, there is still a 5 percent chance of

concluding that an observed t value representing one comparison in the sample

is large enough to be statistically significant. As the number of comparisons

increases, the risk of making such an error in inference also increases.

To guard against errors of inference based upon multiple comparisons, the

Bonferroni procedure to correct significance-tests for multiple contrasts was

used. This method corrects the significance (or alpha) level for the total

number of contrasts made with a particular classification vanable. For

each classification variable, there are (K*(K-1)/2) possible contrasts (or

nonredundant pairwise comparisons), where K is the number of categories.

The Bonferroni procedure divides the alpha level for a single t test (for

example, .05) by the number of possible pairwise comparisons in order to give

a new alpha that is corrected for the fact that multiple contrasts are being

made.

The formula used to compute the t statistic is as follows:

P,-P,

t=

dsel’ + se:

where P~ and Pz are the estimates to be compared and sel and sez are their

corresponding standard errors.

●

●

●

Appendix C . . . ...173
174 . . . . . . Appendix C
APPENDIX D

Definitions of Subpopulations and variables

Older adult population

Survey respondents were asked to report their date of birth, and this

information was used to calculate their age. The older adult population

includes individuals age 60 and older. (The rationale for using 60, rather than

65, as the lower boundary is explained at the beginning of Chapter 1.) In some

parts of the report, results are presented for three age groups. of older adults:

age 60 to 69; ’70 to 79; and 80 and older.

Younger adult population

The younger adult population includes individuals age 16 through 59. In some

parts of the report, data are presented for two age groups within this

population: age 16 to 24 and age 25 to 59.

Self-reported literacy proficiencies

Survey participants were asked how well they understand English when it is

spoken to them, and how well they speak it, read it, write it, and do arithmetic.

The response options were: very well, well, not well, and not at all. The last two

options (not well, not at all) were collapsed into one category for reporting

purposes.

Help with literacy

Respondents were asked how much help they get from family members or

friends with everyday literacy tasks: filling out forms, reading newspaper

articles or other written information, reading printed information associated

with government agencies, companies, etc., writing letters, and using basic

arithmetic. Four response options were given: a lot, some, a little, and none.

● ✎

●

Appendix D . . . ...175
~

Level of education

Respondents were asked to indicate the highest level of education the>

completed in this country. The following options were given:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Still in high school

kss than high school

Some high school

GED or high school equivalency

High school graduate

Vocational, trade, or business school after high school

College: less than 2 years

College: associate’s degree (A.A.)

College: 2 or more years, no degree \

College graduate (B.S. or B. A.)

Postgraduate, no degree

Postgraduate degree (M. S., M. A., Ph. D., M. D., etc. )

These options were collapsed as follows: “less than high school” and “some high

school” were collapsed into a new category, “O to 1.2 yea~s”; the GED and high

school graduate categories were combined; and the remaining groups were

combined into the category “some postsecondary.” The category “still in high

school” is omitted from the analyses, as no comparisons between the under-60

and older adult populations can be made for adults with this level of education.

Reason for leaving school

Respondents who reported that their highest level of education was less than

high school, some high school, or a GED were asked to indicate their main

reason for dropping out of school. They were asked to choose from the

following reasons:

● financial problems

● went to work or into the milita~

● pregnancy

● lost interest or behavior problems in school

● academic problems in school

● family or personal problems

● other

●

176 . . . . . . Appendix D
Race/ethnicity —— —..

Respondents were asked two questions about their race and ethnicity. The first

question asked them to indicate which of the following best described them:

● White

● Black (African American)

● American Indian

● Alaskan Native

● Pacific Islander

● Asian

● Other

The interviewer recorded from observation the races of respondents who

refused to answer the question. The second question asked respondents

whether they were of Spanish or Hispanic origin or descent. Those who

responded “yes” were asked to identi~ which of the following groups best

describes their Hispanic origin:

● Mexicano, Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano

● Puerto Rican .

● Cuban

● Central/South American

● Other Spanish/Hispanic

In most cases, data are reported for three groups: White, Black, and Hispanic.

These categories are mutually exclusive. All those who indicated they were of

Spanish or Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of their origin.

Data for older adults who indicated they were Pacific Islander, Asian, American

Indian, and Alaskan Native are not reported because of their small numbers in

the sample. For analyses in which the sample sizes were too small to permit

further disaggregation, data are reported for two racial/ethnic groups: White

and Other.

Language usually spoken

This variable was derived from multiple survey questions. Respondents were

asked what languages they learned before starting school. Those who reported

having learned only English were categorized as usually speaking English now.

Those who reported that they learned another language before starting school

were asked what language they usually speak now. Respondents who indicated

that they usually speak English were grouped with those who learned only

English. Two other categories were also established: English and other, and

other only.

.

●

●

Appendix D . . . ...177
Language learned before starting school

. . . . .-. ..-— — ——

Respondents were asked what language or languages they learned to speak

before starting school. Respondents are divided into three categories: English

only, English and other, and other only.

Visual impairment

Respondents were asked whether they have difficulty seeing the words or

letters in ordina~ newspaper print even when wearing glasses or contact lenses

(if they usually wear thelm). Those who responded “yes” are classified as having

a visual impairment.

Sex

The interviewers recorded the sex of each respondent.

Region

Census definitions of regions are used in reporting the rmults. The four regions

are the Northeast, South, Midwest, and West. The states in each region are

identified below.

● Northeast: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode

Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania

* South: Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West

Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky,

Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, C)klahoma,

Texas

* Midwest: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota,

Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas

* West: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona,

Utah. Nevada, Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Hawaii

●

178 . . . . . . Appendix D
Labor force participation

Respondents were asked what they were doing the \veek before the survey:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

ivorking at a full-time job for pay or profit (3,5 hours or more)

working two or more pm-t-time jobs for pay, totaling ;35 or more hours

working for pay or profit part-time ( 1 to 34 hours)

unemployed, laid off, or looking for work

with a job but not at work (e.g., illness, vacation, or work stoppage)

with a job but on family leave (maternity or paternity leave)

in school

keeping house

retired

<

doing volunteer work

Five categories were established: employed; unemployed, laid off, or looking

for work; out of the labor force: retired; and retired and volunteering. Adults in

the first three categories were considered as being employed; those in the

fourth catego~ were counted as unemployed; those in the seventh and eighth

categories as being out of the labor force; those in-the ninth catego~ only as

retired; and those in both the ninth and tenth categories as retired and

volunteering. (Results for adults in the fifth and sixth categories are not

reported here. )

Volunteer activity

From the question on labor force participation (described above), a variable

was derived relating to volunteer activity. Two groups were established: those

who volunteered the week before the survey, and those who did not.

Voting

The survey asked respondents whether they had voted in a national or state

election in the past five years. Some participants reported being ineligible to

vote, and they were excluded from the analyses. The results reported reflect

the percentages of eligible adults who voted.

●

●

●

Appendix D . . . ...179
Annual household income

Respondents were asked to indicate their total family income from all sources

in 1991. They were instructed to consider as family anyone who lived in their

household and who was related to them by blood, marriage, or adoption.

Responses were aggregated into the following categories:

● Less than $10,000

● $10,000 to $19,999

● $20,000 to $39,999

● $40,000 or more

In some cases, household income is reported using three categories: Less than

$10,OOO; $10,OOO to $19,999; and $20,000 or more. In ather cases, two

categories are used: Less than $20,000, and $20,000 or more.

Acquisition of literacy skills

AI1 participants were asked where they primarily learned to read newspapers,

magazines, or books; to read graphs, diagrams, or maps; to fill out forms; and

to write letters, notes, memos, or reports. The response-choices were: mostly in

school, at home or in the community, at work, did not learn. and other.

Library use

Respondents were asked how often they use the services of a library for any

reason. The options were: daily, weekly, monthly, once or twice a year, and

never.

Newspaper reading

Respondents were asked how often they read a newspaper in English: every day,

a few times a week, once a week, less than once a week, or never. The options of

every day and a few times a week were collapsed into one category. The other

categories were reported as collected.

Magazine reading

Respondents were asked how many different magazines they look at or read in

English on a regular basis. The response options were: O, 1,2,3 to 5, and 6 or

more. These were collapsed into three reporting categories: none, 1 or 2, and 3 or

more.

●

180 . . . . . . Appendix D
Sources of information about current events

. . .—

Respondents were asked how much information about current events, public

affairs, and the government they usuallv get from newspapers, magazines,

radio, television, and familv members. The response options were: a lot, some,

a little. and none.

—..

Television viewing —

Respondents were asked how many hours of television they watch each day

none, 1 hour or less, 2 hours, 3 hours, 4 hours, 5 hours, or 6 hours or more.

These options were collapsed into 3 categories: O to 1 hour, 2 to 3 hours, and 4

or more hours.

Personal literacy activities

Respondents were asked how often they read the following materials for

personal use: letters or memos; reports, articles, magazines, or journals;

manuals or reference books, including catalogs and~arts lists; directions or

instructions for medicines, recipes, or other products; diagrams or schematics;

bills, invoices, spreadsheets, or budget tables. They were also asked how often

they write letters or memos; fill out forms; and use arithmetic.

The response options were: every day, a few times a week, once a week,

less than once a week, and never. These were collapsed into three categories:

often (every day or a few times a week), occasionally (once a week), and rarely

(less than once a week or never).

Work-related literacy activities

Respondents who had held a paying job within the past three years were asked

how often they engage(d) in various literacy activities at work. The list of

activities and response options used in these questions were the same as those

used for the questions about personal literacy activities (see above).

*

*

.

Appendix D . . . ...181
—“*

.

182 . . . . . . AppendixD
APPENDIX E

.; .:~m?m?lam 4%Z2ZT ‘1--. -a .w~5L5w.wT”.= X-P.WL =ss.m~..z--?cd:~

Participants in the Development Process

and Information About the Authom

<

Literacy Definition Committee

Ms. Barbara Clark

Regional Manager

Central Region

Los Angeles Public Library

Ms. Nancy Cobb _ .

Manager

Human Resources Development Department

Nabisco Biscuit Company

Ms. Hanna Fingeret

Director

Literacy South

Ms. Evelyn Ganzglass

Director

Employment and Social Services Policy Studies

Center for Policy Research

National Governors’ Association

Mr. Ronald Gillum

Director

Adult Extended Learning Services

Michigan Department of Education

Mr. Karl Haigler

President

The Salem Company

Mr. Carl Kaestle

Professor of Educational Policy Studies

Wisconsin Center for Educational Research

University of Wisconsin

Mr. Reynaldo Macias

(Liaison to the Technical Review Committee)

Professor of Education and Director

UC Linguistic Minority Research Institute

University of California, Santa Barbara

Appendix E . . . ...183
Mr. Dwid Neice

Director of Research and Anal>:sis Directorate

Department of the Secretary of State

Canada

Honorable Carolyn Pollan

(ex-officio member)

State Representative

Arkansas State Legislature

Ms. L,ynne Robinson

Director of Support Services

Division of ACE

Sweetwater Union High School District

Mr. Anthony Sm-miento

Director <

Education Deptiment

AFL-CIO

Ms. Gail Spangenberg

Vice President and Chief Operating Officer

Business Council for Effective Literacy

Technical Review Committee - .

Ms. Susan Embretson

Professor

Department of Psychology

University of Kansas

Mr. Jeremy Finn

Professor

Graduate School of Education

SUNY Buffalo

Mr. Robert Glaser

Director

Laming Research and Development Center

University of Pittsburgh

Mr. Ronald Hambleton

Professor

School of Education

Laboratory of Psychometric and Evaluative Research

University of Massachusetts

Mr. H.uynh Huynh

Professor

Department of Educational Psychology

University of South Carolina at Columbia

Ms. Sylvia Johnson

Professor

Howard University

—“*

*

184 . . . . . . Appendix E
Mr. Frank Schmidt

Professor

Industrial Relations and Human Resources

College of Business

University of Iowa

Mr. Richard Venezky

(Liaison to the Literacy Definition Committee)

Professor

Department of Educational Studies

University of Delaware

Literacv of Incarcerated Adults Review Group

Ms. Caroline Wolf Harlow

Statistician \

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Mr. Christopher Koch

Education Progmm Specialist

Office of Correctional Education

U.S. Department of Education

Ms. Harriet Lebowitz

Social Science Research ‘Analy3is

Federal Bureau of Prisons

Mr. Ronald Pugsley

Office of Vocational and Adult Education

U.S. Department of Education

Ms. Gail Schwartz

Chief for the Office of Correctional Education

U.S. Department of Education

Literacy of Older Adults Review Group

Ms. Michele Adler

Disability Policy Analyst

Office of Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

Department of Health and Human Services

Ms. Helen Brown

(Lhison to the Literacy Definition Committee

and the Technical Review Committee)

Research Analyst/Associate

American Association of Retired Persons

Ms. Bells Jacobs

Consultant

National Council on the Aging

Mr. Robert H. Prisuta

Senior Research Associate

Research and Data Resources Department

American Association of Retired Persons

.

●

●

Appendix E . . . ...185
:.

Test Develo~ment Consultants

Ms. Valerie de Be]]is

Center for Mathematics. Science, and Computer

Education

Rutgers Universi~

Mr. John Dawkins

Language and Literature Department

Bucks County Community College

Ms. Harriet L. Frankel

Secondary and Higher Education Programs

Educational Testing Service

Ms. Bonnie Hole

The Bureau of Evaluation and Student Assessment

Connecticut State Department of Education

Mr. Richard Lesh

Division of Cognitive and Instructional Science

Educational Testing Service

Ms. Ave M. Merritt

Secondary and Higher Education Programs

Educational Testing Setice -

Mr. Peter Mosenthal

Reading and Language Arts Center

Syracuse University

Ms. Pam Smith

Secondary and Higher Education Programs

Educational Testing Service

Ms. Wallie Walker-Hammond

Secondary and Higher Education Programs

Educational Testing Service

o● *

186, . . . . . Appendix E
About the Authors

Helen Brown is a Research Associate in the E\aluaticm Research

Services Department at the American Association of Retired

Persons.

Robert Prkuta , Director of Demographics and Trend Analysis

for the American Association of Retired Persons, has conducted

evaluation and public opinion research for that organization for

the past 15 years. He is a member of the Gerontological Society

of America and the American Association of Public Opinion

Research.

Bells Jacobs is a consultant on aging services. Formerly she was

Senior Program Manager for the National Council on the Aging

and Chairman of the Montgomery County Commission on

Aging. .

Anne Campbell was Director of Test Development for the

National Adult Literacy Survey at Educational Testing Service.

She is currently a freelance writer and editor residing in

Farmiugton, Ne\v Mexico.

.

.

●

Appendix E . . . ...187