The Reading Literacy of U.S. 

Fourth-Grade Students in an 

International Context

Results From the 2001 and 2006 Progress in International Reading 

Literacy Study (PIRLS)

U. S. Department of Education

NCES 2008-017

The Reading Literacy of U.S. 

Fourth-Grade Students in an 

International Context

Results From the 2001 and 2006 Progress in International Reading 

Literacy Study (PIRLS)

November 2007

Justin Baer

Stéphane Baldi

Kaylin Ayotte

American Institutes for Research

Patricia J. Green

RTI International

Daniel McGrath

Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics

U. S. Department of Education

NCES 2008-017
U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences

Grover J. Whitehurst

Director

National Center for Education Statistics

Mark Schneider

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 countries. 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. Unless specifically noted, all information contained herein is in the public domain.

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 your comments to

National Center for Education Statistics

Institute of Education Sciences

U.S. Department of Education

1990 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006-5651

November 2007

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page address is http://nces.ed.gov.

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Suggested Citation

Baer, J., Baldi, S., Ayotte, K., and Green, P. (2007). The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an 

International Context: Results From the 2001 and 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 

(NCES 2008–017). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC. 

For ordering information on this report, write to

U.S. Department of Education

ED Pubs

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

or call toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubs or order online at http://www.edpubs.org.

Content Contact

Daniel McGrath

(202) 502-7426

daniel.mcgrath@ed.gov
iii

Executive Summary

The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 

(PIRLS) is an assessment of the reading comprehension 

of students in their fourth year of schooling. In 2006, 

PIRLS was administered to a nationally representative 

sample of fourth-grade students in the United States, 

as well as to students in 44 other jurisdictions around 

the world.1 The PIRLS assessment measures student 

performance on a combined reading literacy scale and 

on a literary subscale and informational subscale. The 

literary subscale assessed performance in reading for 

literary experience and the informational subscale in 

acquiring and using information.

This report compares the performance of U.S. students 

with their peers around the world and also examines how 

the reading literacy of U.S. fourth-grade students has 

changed since the first administration of PIRLS in 2001. 

Results are presented by student background characteristics (sex and race/ethnicity) and by contextual factors 

that may be associated with reading proficiency (school 

characteristics, instructional practices and teacher preparation, and the home environment for reading).

On the combined reading literacy scale in 2006,

• Average scores for U.S. students (540) were higher 

than the scores for students in 22 jurisdictions;

• Average scores for U.S. students were lower than 

the scores for students in 10 jurisdictions;

• There were no measurable differences between 

average scores for U.S. students and the scores 

for students in 12 jurisdictions; 

• The percentage of U.S. students at or above each 

of the four international benchmarks was higher 

than the international median percentage 

(96 versus 94 for the low international benchmark, 

82 versus 76 for the intermediate international 

benchmark, 47 versus 41 for the high international 

benchmark, and 12 versus 7 for the advanced 

international benchmark);

• Average scores for girls were higher than 

average scores for boys in the United States (545 

versus 535) and in all jurisdictions, with the 

exception of two jurisdictions, where there were no 

measurable differences between the sexes; and

• Average scores for White, non-Hispanic (560); 

Asian, non-Hispanic (567); and non-Hispanic students in the racial groups classified as other (573) 

(see appendix B for race/ethnicity classification) 

in the United States were higher than the scores 

for Black, non-Hispanic (503); Hispanic (518); and 

American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic 

students (468) in the United States.

Between 2001 and 2006,

• There were no measurable differences in average scores 

for U.S. students on the combined reading literacy 

scale or on the literary or informational subscales;

• Average scores on the combined reading literacy 

scale increased for students in 8 jurisdictions, 

decreased for students in 6 jurisdictions, and 

did not measurably differ for students in 14 

jurisdictions; and

• The average number of years of experience for U.S. 

teachers of fourth-grade students decreased from 

15 to 12 years.

1

The assessment is open to countries and subnational entities. 

In this report, participating countries and subnational entities are both referred to as “jurisdictions.”
Page intentionally left blank
Acknowledgments

This report reflects the contributions of many individuals. The authors wish to thank all those who assisted 

with PIRLS 2006, from the design stage through the creation of this report. At NCES, the project was reviewed 

by Larry Ogle (retired), Elois Scott (retired), and Marilyn 

Seastrom. Sampling and data collection were conducted 

by RTI International. At the PIRLS International Study 

Center, Pierre Foy, Eugenio Gonzalez, and Ann Kennedy 

offered assistance with the PIRLS data. The members of 

the PIRLS Technical Review Panel (noted in appendix C) 

lent their time and expertise toward reviewing the project and carefully considered the content that should be 

included in this report. All data tables, figures, and text 

presented in the report were reviewed by Kevin Bromer, 

Martin Hahn, Alexandra Henning, David Miller, and Siri 

Warkentien at the Education Statistics Services Institute 

(ESSI). We also thank our colleagues at the American 

Institutes for Research (AIR) who assisted with data 

analyses and the preparation of the report.
Page intentionally left blank
vii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Defining and measuring reading literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Design and administration of PIRLS 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Reporting student results on PIRLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Reading Literacy in the United States and Internationally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Average scores in 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Changes between 2001 and 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Reading literacy by international benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Reading Literacy and Student Background Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Race/ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Reading Literacy and School and Classroom Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Control of school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

School poverty level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Instructional practices related to reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Teacher preparation and experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Home Environment for Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Reading activities outside of school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 

Table of Contents
viii

The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context

Appendix A: Sample Items From PIRLS 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Appendix B: Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Appendix C: PIRLS Technical Review Panel, United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 

Appendix D: PIRLS Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 
ix

Results From the 2001 and 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

List of Tables

Table Page

1. Distribution of PIRLS items measuring processes of comprehension and purposes of reading: 2006 . . . . . . . 2

2. Average scores for fourth-grade students in participating PIRLS jurisdictions on combined reading literacy 

scale, literary subscale, and informational subscale, by jurisdiction: 2001 and 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3. Average scores for U.S. fourth-grade students on combined reading literacy scale, literary subscale, 

and informational subscale, by race/ethnicity: 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4. Percentage distribution of fourth-grade students in United States and internationally who read 

stories or novels or read for information, by frequency of reading outside of school: 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . 16

B-1. International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) levels, definitions, and U.S. equivalents in 

preprimary through 12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

B-2. IEA minimum sample size and unweighted response rate targets for participating PIRLS jurisdictions: 

2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

B-3. Total number of participating schools, students assessed, and overall weighted response rates, 

by participating PIRLS jurisdictions: 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

B-4. Percentage of U.S. students excluded from PIRLS at the school-listing level and student-listing

level: 2001 and 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

B-5. Distribution of items on the PIRLS 2006 assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context

List of Figures

Figure Page

1. Jurisdictions participating in PIRLS: 2001 and 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Description of PIRLS international benchmarks: 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3. Average scores for fourth-grade students in participating PIRLS jurisdictions on combined reading literacy 

scale, literary subscale, and informational subscale, by jurisdiction: 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4. Percentage of fourth-grade students in United States and international median who reach PIRLS 

international benchmarks: 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

5. Difference in average scores between fourth-grade boys and girls in participating PIRLS jurisdictions 

on combined reading literacy scale, by jurisdiction: 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

6. Average scores for U.S. fourth-grade students in public schools on combined reading literacy scale, 

by school enrollment eligible for free or reduced-price lunch: 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

7. Percentage distribution of fourth-grade students in United States and internationally receiving reading

instruction each week, by average number of hours spent on reading instruction each week: 2006 . . . . . . 14

A-1. Example A of item at PIRLS low international benchmark: 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

A-2. Example B of item at PIRLS low international benchmark: 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

A-3. Example of item at PIRLS intermediate international benchmark: 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

A-4. Example of item at PIRLS high international benchmark: 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

A-5. Example of item at PIRLS advanced international benchmark: 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 

(PIRLS) is a continuing assessment of the reading comprehension of students in their fourth year of schooling 

in jurisdictions around the world. PIRLS not only helps 

participating jurisdictions understand the literacy skills 

of their students but also places the literacy of young 

readers within an international context. Drawing comparisons between jurisdictions reveals areas of strengths 

as well as areas in need of improvement, offering jurisdictions insight into how the reading literacy of their 

students may be enhanced.

PIRLS is conducted by the International Association for 

the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), with 

national sponsors in each participating jurisdiction. In 

the United States, PIRLS is sponsored by the National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES), in the Institute of 

Education Sciences in the U.S. Department of Education.

PIRLS 2006 was the second cycle of the study, which 

was first administered in 2001. The assessment is open 

to countries and subnational entities. In this report, 

participating countries and subnational entities are 

both referred to as “jurisdictions.” In 2006, forty-five 

jurisdictions, including the United States, participated 

in PIRLS (figure 1). In addition to 38 participating 

countries, this total includes 5 participating Canadian 

provinces and 2 separate samples of students that were 

assessed in Belgium.2 The United States was one of 29 

jurisdictions to participate in both the 2001 and 2006 

administrations of PIRLS.

Introduction

Figure 1. Jurisdictions participating in PIRLS: 

2001 and 2006

Austria

Belgium (Flemish)

Belgium (French)

Bulgaria

Canada, Alberta

Canada, British Columbia

Canada, Nova Scotia

Canada, Ontario

Canada, Quebec

Chinese Taipei

Denmark

England

France

Georgia

Germany

Hong Kong, SAR1

Hungary

Iceland

Indonesia

Iran

Israel

Italy

Kuwait

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Macedonia

Moldova

Morocco

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Qatar

Romania

Russian Federation

Scotland

Singapore

Slovak Republic

Slovenia

South Africa

Spain

Sweden

Trinidad and Tobago

United States

Participated in 2006 Participated in 2001 and 2006

only

1

Hong Kong, SAR, is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of 

the People’s Republic of China.

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy 

2 Study (PIRLS), 2001 and 2006. The two major geographic and cultural regions of Belgium 

(Flemish and French) have separate educational systems and 

were each assessed in PIRLS. Throughout the report, Belgium 

(Flemish) and Belgium (French) are reported as separate 

jurisdictions.

This report summarizes the performance of U.S. fourthgrade students on the three separate scales (two 

literacy subscales and the combined scale) that make 
The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context

The distribution of PIRLS items across the first two 

dimensions, processes of comprehension and purposes 

of reading, is shown in table 1. Both dimensions were 

measured through the PIRLS assessment items administered to each participating student. The third dimension, reading behaviors and attitudes, was measured 

through a separate background questionnaire administered to participating students.

The processes of comprehension dimension describes 

how young readers interpret and make sense of text. 

PIRLS assesses students’ abilities to (1) focus on 

and retrieve explicitly stated information, (2) make 

straightforward inferences, (3) interpret and integrate 

ideas and information, and (4) examine and evaluate 

content, language, and textual elements.

The purposes of reading dimension describes the two 

main reasons why young students read printed materials: (1) for literary experience and (2) to acquire and 

use information. Fictional texts are used to measure the 

ability of students to read for literary experience, and 

nonfictional texts are used to measure their skills at 

acquiring and using information.

Results from the PIRLS assessment are reported on 

subscales that measure the two types of purposes of 

up the PIRLS assessment. The analyses presented help 

address three questions:

• How does the reading literacy of U.S. fourth-grade 

students compare with the reading literacy of 

fourth-grade students internationally?

• How does the reading literacy of U.S. fourth-grade 

students vary by student background characteristics, school and classroom characteristics, and 

home reading environment?

• How has the reading literacy of U.S. fourth-grade 

students changed since 2001? 

Results and comparisons for all participating jurisdictions in PIRLS 2006, as well as technical documentation 

for the assessment, are available on the Internet at 

www.pirls.org.

Defining and measuring reading 

literacy

PIRLS defines reading literacy as

the ability to understand and use those written 

language forms required by society and/or valued 

by the individual. Young readers can construct 

meaning from a variety of texts. They read to 

learn, to participate in communities of readers 

in school and everyday life, and for enjoyment.

(Mullis et al. 2006)

Within this context, the study examines three dimensions of reading literacy:

• processes of comprehension;3

• purposes of reading; and

• reading behaviors and attitudes.

Table 1. Distribution of PIRLS items 

measuring processes of 

comprehension and purposes of 

reading: 2006

Classification of items Number of items

Processes of comprehension

 Total 126

Focus on and retrieve explicitly stated 

 information 31

Make straightforward inferences 43

Interpret and integrate ideas and information 34

Examine and evaluate content, language, 

 and textual elements 18

Purposes of reading

 Total 126

Literary experience 64

Acquire and use information 62

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy 

Study (PIRLS), 2006.

3

See Mullis et al. (2007) for results of analyses examining 

processes of comprehension.


Results From the 2001 and 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

reading: reading for literary experience and reading to 

acquire and use information. Additionally, results are 

reported on a combined reading literacy scale, which 

captures students’ overall literacy skills related to both 

processes of comprehension and purposes of reading. 

This report emphasizes results from the combined reading literacy scale because the scale summarizes student 

performance on the two cognitive dimensions of reading literacy in a single measure.4

The texts for the PIRLS assessment were submitted from 

the participating jurisdictions and reflect the kinds of 

printed materials read by children in those jurisdictions. All participating jurisdictions used the same 

texts. The passages were reviewed by the PIRLS Reading 

Development Group, an international advisory panel 

that selected texts for the assessment that reflected the 

jurisdictions and cultures participating in PIRLS. 

Design and administration of 

PIRLS 2006

PIRLS consists of two main components: (1) a literacy 

assessment administered to sampled fourth-grade students and (2) background questionnaires administered 

to students, their teachers, and the administrators 

in the schools in which the sampled students were 

enrolled.5 Procedures for sampling students and administering the study were established by the IEA and 

then implemented in each participating jurisdiction. 

In the United States, the PIRLS sample was designed 

to be representative of all fourth-grade students in the 

50 states and the District of Columbia. Quality control 

monitors trained by the IEA visited schools in each 

jurisdiction to ensure that the procedures specified by 

the IEA were implemented properly.

The U.S. sample consisted of 222 schools, of which 214 

were eligible (8 schools had closed and were designated 

as ineligible). One hundred and twenty of the original 

sample schools participated, for a weighted response 

rate of 57 percent.6 An additional 63 replacement schools 

also participated, for a total of 183 schools, or an 86 

percent weighted school response rate.7 Information 

about the size of each fourth-grade class was collected 

from participating schools, and a random sample of 

one or two classes from each school was selected. All 

students from selected classrooms were asked to participate. Of the 256 classrooms sampled, 255 participated, 

or 99 percent. Within these classrooms, 5,442 students 

were eligible and 5,190 completed the assessment for a 

weighted student response rate of 95 percent.

A total of 10 reading passages, 4 from PIRLS 2001 and 

6 developed for the 2006 administration, were included 

in the assessment booklets used in all participating 

jurisdictions. The use of common passages in the 2001 

and 2006 assessments allows the analysis of changes 

in reading literacy over the 5-year period between 

administrations for jurisdictions that participated in 

both cycles. The passages, as well as all other study 

materials, were translated into the primary language or 

languages of instruction in each jurisdiction. 

Students who participated in the assessment received a 

test booklet containing two passages and were asked to 

answer a series of multiple-choice and open-ended questions related to the passages. Student responses were 

scored in each jurisdiction following standardized scoring 

procedures outlined and monitored by the IEA. Sample 

responses to one of the reading passages included in the 

2006 assessment are shown in appendix A.

Further information about the design and administration of PIRLS is provided in appendix B.

4

See appendix B for more information about the items 

comprising the PIRLS scales. 

5

All jurisdictions other than the United States also administered a background questionnaire to students’ parents or legal 

guardians.

6

All weighted response rates discussed in this report refer to 

final adjusted weights. 

7

Response rates are calculated using the formulas developed 

by the IEA for PIRLS. The standard NCES formula would result 

in a lower school response rate of approximately 63 percent.


The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context

Reporting student results on PIRLS

Results from PIRLS are reported in two ways: (1) as 

average scale scores and (2) as the percentage of students reaching each of the PIRLS international benchmark levels.

Average scale scores

PIRLS scores are reported on a scale from 0–1000 with 

the scale average fixed at 500 and a standard deviation 

of 100. The PIRLS scale average was set in 2001 and 

reflects the combined proficiency distribution of all students in all jurisdictions participating in 2001. To allow 

comparisons between 2001 and 2006, scores of students 

in jurisdictions that participated in both 2001 and 2006 

(29 jurisdictions) were used to scale the 2006 results. 

The 2006 scores were linked to the 2001 scale using common items on both assessments. Once scores from the 

2006 assessment were scaled to the 2001 scale, scores 

of students in jurisdictions that participated in 2006 but 

not in 2001 were placed on the PIRLS scale. 

PIRLS international benchmarks

The PIRLS international benchmarks provide a way to 

interpret scale scores and to understand how students’ 

proficiency varies along the PIRLS scale. In 2001, the 

cutpoints for the PIRLS benchmarks were set on the 

basis of the distribution of students along the PIRLS 

scale (the top 10 percent, the upper quartile, the 

median, and the lower quartile). In 2006, the cutpoints 

were revised to be identical to the cutpoints used for 

the Trends in International Mathematics and Science 

Study (TIMSS), which is also conducted by the IEA. 

Information about the rationale underlying the benchmarks and the procedures used to set the cutpoints is 

available in Martin et al. (2007). Figure 2 describes 

the international benchmarks introduced for the 2006 

assessment.

The skills and strategies associated with each level were 

developed by the PIRLS Reading Development Group, 

which reviewed a sample of student responses to the 

assessment items. Each international benchmark describes 

the reading skills and strategies associated with specific 

Figure 2. Description of PIRLS international benchmarks: 2006

Benchmark Cutpoint Reading skills and strategies

Advanced 625 • Interpret figurative language

• Distinguish and interpret complex information from different parts of text

• Integrate ideas across text to provide interpretations about characters’ feelings 

 and behaviors 

High 550 • Recognize some textual features, such as figurative language and abstract messages

• Make inferences on the basis of abstract or embedded information

• Integrate information to recognize main ideas and provide explanations

Intermediate 475 • Identify central events, plot sequences, and relevant story details

• Make straightforward inferences from the text

• Begin to make connections across parts of the text

Low 400 • Retrieve explicitly stated details from literary and informational texts

NOTE: Information about the procedures used to set the international benchmarks is available in the PIRLS 2006 Technical Report

(Martin, Mullis, and Kennedy 2007).

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), 2006.


Results From the 2001 and 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

scores on the combined reading literacy scale. For example, 

students with scores equal to or greater than 400 on the 

combined reading literacy scale met the low international 

benchmark. This means that these students could retrieve 

explicitly stated details from literary and informational 

texts. Students who scored at or above the cutpoint for 

the next benchmark (intermediate, at 475) could accomplish the reading skills and strategies associated with the 

low benchmark, as well as the reading skills and strategies 

associated with the intermediate benchmark.

Organization of the report

This report is divided into five sections. Following this 

introduction, the next section compares the reading 

literacy of U.S. fourth-grade students with the literacy 

of their peers internationally and also examines changes 

in literacy between 2001 and 2006. The third section 

on student background characteristics explores differences among U.S. students by sex and race/ethnicity. 

The fourth section compares the reading literacy of U.S. 

fourth-grade students on the basis of school characteristics. The final section examines the relationship between 

literacy and the home environment for reading.

All differences between or among groups discussed 

in this report are statistically significant at the .05 

level of statistical significance. Information about the 

tests conducted to determine statistical significance is 

provided in appendix B. Supplementary tables showing all estimates and standard errors discussed in this 

report are available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/

pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008017. More information about 

U.S. participation in PIRLS is available at the NCES 

website at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pirls.
The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context

Results from PIRLS 2006 reveal how the reading literacy 

of U.S. fourth-grade students compares with the reading literacy of students internationally, as well as how 

reading literacy has changed since the first administration of PIRLS in 2001. In addition to reporting average 

scores on the combined reading literacy scale and the 

literary and informational subscales, results for 2006 

are shown by each of the four PIRLS international 

benchmarks.

Average scores in 2006

The average score for U.S. fourth-grade students on the 

combined reading literacy scale (540) was higher than 

the PIRLS scale average (500) and also higher than the 

average scores for students in 22 of the 45 participating PIRLS jurisdictions (figure 3). The U.S. average 

was lower than the average score in 10 jurisdictions. 

There were no measurable differences between the U.S. 

average and the average scores in the 12 remaining 

jurisdictions.

On the literary subscale, the U.S. average (541) was 

higher than the PIRLS scale average (500). The U.S. 

average on the informational subscale (537) was also 

higher than the PIRLS scale average (500). On the literary subscale, U.S. students outperformed students in 

23 jurisdictions. Students in 9 jurisdictions had higher 

Reading Literacy in the United States and 

Internationally

average scores on the literary subscale than students in 

the United States.

On the informational subscale, the U.S. average was 

higher than the average in 21 jurisdictions and lower 

than the average in 12 jurisdictions.

Changes between 2001 and 2006

As shown in table 2, average scores for U.S. fourthgrade students on the combined reading literacy scale 

did not measurably differ between 2001 and 2006. 

Average scores for the literary and informational subscales in 2006 also did not measurably differ from the 

average scores in 2001.

Of the 29 jurisdictions that participated in PIRLS in 

both 2001 and 2006, 8 (Germany; Hong Kong, SAR; 

Hungary; Italy; the Russian Federation; Singapore; the 

Slovak Republic; and Slovenia) saw increases in their 

average combined reading literacy scores.8 Average 

scores on the combined reading literacy scale declined 

from 2001 to 2006 in England, Lithuania, Morocco, the 

Netherlands, Romania, and Sweden.

8

Although Kuwait participated in 2001 and 2006, the IEA 

elected not to report the 2001 estimates for the country 

because of concerns about the quality of Kuwait’s data. 


Results From the 2001 and 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

Figure 3. Average scores for fourth-grade students in participating PIRLS jurisdictions on combined 

reading literacy scale, literary subscale, and informational subscale, by jurisdiction: 2006

Average is higher 

than the U.S. average

Average is not 

measurably different 

from the U.S. average

Average is lower than 

the U.S. average

1

Hong Kong, SAR, is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China.

2

Met guidelines for sample participation rates only after replacement schools were included. See appendix B for more information about 

participation rates and the use of replacement schools in sampling.

3

Did not meet guidelines for sample participation rates after replacement schools were included. See appendix B for more information 

about participation rates and the use of replacement schools in sampling. 

NOTE: Jurisdictions are ordered on the basis of average scores, from highest to lowest. Score differences as noted between the United 

States and other jurisdictions are statistically significant at the .05 level of statistical significance (p < .05).

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 

(PIRLS), 2006.

Average 

combined 

reading

Jurisdiction literacy score

Russian Federation 565

Hong Kong, SAR1 564

Canada, Alberta 560

Canada, British Columbia 558

Singapore 558

Luxembourg 557

Canada, Ontario 555

Hungary 551

Italy 551

Sweden 549

Germany 548

Belgium (Flemish)2 547

Bulgaria 547

Netherlands2 547

Denmark 546

Canada, Nova Scotia 542

Latvia 541

United States2 540

England 539

Austria 538

Lithuania 537

Chinese Taipei 535

Canada, Quebec 533

New Zealand 532

Slovak Republic 531

Scotland2 527

France 522

Slovenia 522

Poland 519

Spain 513

Israel 512

Iceland 511

Belgium (French) 500

Moldova 500

Norway3 498

Romania 489

Georgia 471

Macedonia 442

Trinidad and Tobago 436

Iran 421

Indonesia 405

Qatar 353

Kuwait 330

Morocco 323

South Africa 302

PIRLS scale average 500

Average

literary 

subscale

Jurisdiction score

Canada, Alberta 561

Russian Federation 561

Canada, British Columbia 559

Hong Kong, SAR1 557

Hungary 557

Canada, Ontario 555

Luxembourg 555

Singapore 552

Italy 551

Germany 549

Denmark 547

Sweden 546

Netherlands2 545

Belgium (Flemish)2 544

Canada, Nova Scotia 543

Bulgaria 542

Lithuania 542

United States2 541

England 539

Latvia 539

Austria 537

Slovak Republic 533

Chinese Taipei 530

Canada, Quebec 529

New Zealand 527

Scotland2 527

Poland 523

Slovenia 519

France 516

Israel 516

Spain 516

Iceland 514

Norway3 501

Belgium (French) 499

Romania 493

Moldova 492

Georgia 476

Macedonia 439

Trinidad and Tobago 434

Iran 426

Indonesia 397

Qatar 358

Kuwait 340

Morocco 317

South Africa 299

PIRLS scale average 500

Average

informational 

subscale

Jurisdiction score

Hong Kong, SAR1 568

Russian Federation 564

Singapore 563

Luxembourg 557

Canada, Alberta 556

Canada, British Columbia 554

Canada, Ontario 552

Bulgaria 550

Italy 549

Sweden 549

Netherlands2 548

Belgium (Flemish)2 547

Germany 544

Denmark 542

Hungary 541

Latvia 540

Canada, Nova Scotia 539

Chinese Taipei 538

England 537

United States2 537

Austria 536

New Zealand 534

Canada, Quebec 533

Lithuania 530

Scotland2 527

Slovak Republic 527

France 526

Slovenia 523

Poland 515

Moldova 508

Spain 508

Israel 507

Iceland 505

Belgium (French) 498

Norway3 494

Romania 487

Georgia 465

Macedonia 450

Trinidad and Tobago 440

Iran 420

Indonesia 418

Qatar 356

Morocco 335

Kuwait 327

South Africa 316

PIRLS scale average 500


The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context

Table 2. Average scores for fourth-grade students in participating PIRLS jurisdictions on combined 

reading literacy scale, literary subscale, and informational subscale, by jurisdiction: 2001 

and 2006

Jurisdiction 2001 2006 2001 2006 2001 2006

Bulgaria 550 547 550 542 551 550

Canada, Ontario 548 554 551 554 542 551*

Canada, Quebec 537 533 534 529 541 533

England 553 539* 559 539* 546 537*

France 525 522 518 516 533 526*

Germany 539 548* 537 549* 538 544*

Hong Kong, SAR1 528 564* 518 557* 537 568*

Hungary 543 551* 548 557* 537 541

Iceland 512 511 520 514* 504 505

Iran 414 421 421 426 408 420*

Israel 509 512 510 516 507 507

Italy 541 551* 543 551* 536 549*

Latvia 545 541 537 539 547 540*

Lithuania 543 537* 546 542 540 530*

Macedonia 442 442 441 439 445 450

Moldova 492 500 480 492* 505 508

Morocco 350 323* 347 317* 358 335

Netherlands2 554 547* 552 545* 553 548

New Zealand 529 532 531 527 525 534

Norway3 499 498 506 501 492 494

Romania 512 489* 512 493* 512 487*

Russian Federation 528 565* 523 561* 531 564*

Scotland2 528 527 529 527 527 527

Singapore 528 558* 528 552* 527 563*

Slovak Republic 518 531* 512 533* 522 527

Slovenia 502 522* 499 519* 503 523*

Sweden 561 549* 559 546* 559 549*

United States2 542 540 550 541 533 537

*p < .05. Significantly different from 2001 average at the .05 level of statistical significance. 1

Hong Kong, SAR, is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China.

2

Met guidelines for sample participation rates in 2006 only after replacement schools were included. See appendix B for more information 

about participation rates and the use of replacement schools in sampling.

3 Did not meet guidelines for sample participation rates in 2006 after replacement schools were included. See appendix B for more 

information about participation rates and the use of replacement schools in sampling. 

NOTE: The 2001 and 2006 estimates for Canada, Ontario shown in this table exclude private schools because only public schools were 

included in the jurisdiction’s 2001 sampling frame. Although Kuwait participated in 2001 and 2006, the IEA elected not to report the 

2001 estimates for the country because of concerns about the quality of Kuwait’s data.

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 

(PIRLS), 2001 and 2006.

Average combined 

reading literacy score

Average literary 

subscale score

Average informational 

subscale score


Results From the 2001 and 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

Figure 4. Percentage of fourth-grade students in United States and international median who reach 

PIRLS international benchmarks: 2006

*p < .05. Significantly different from international median percentage at the .05 level of statistical significance.

NOTE: The United States met guidelines for sample participation rates after replacement schools were included. See appendix B for more 

information about participation rates and the use of replacement schools in sampling. The international median represents all participating PIRLS jurisdictions, including the United States.

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 

(PIRLS), 2006.

94

76

41

7

96*

82*

47*

12*

United States International median

Low Intermediate High Advanced

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Benchmark

Reading literacy by international 

benchmarks

Figure 4 shows the percentage of U.S. fourth-grade 

students reaching each of the PIRLS international 

benchmarks, as well as the international median percentage (the international median percentage includes 

the United States) of students reaching each benchmark. For the international median at each benchmark, 

half of the PIRLS jurisdictions have that percentage of 

students at or above the median and half have that 

percentage of students below the median. For example, 

the low international benchmark median of 94 percent 

indicates that half of the jurisdictions have 94 percent 

or more of their students who met the low benchmark 

and half have less than 94 percent of their students 

who met the low benchmark.

For each of the four international benchmarks, the percentage of U.S. students who reached the benchmark 

was higher than the international median percentage. 

Ninety-six percent of U.S. fourth-grade students met 

the low international benchmark, indicating that they 

had scores on the combined reading literacy scale equal 

to or greater than 400. Twelve percent of U.S. students 

reached the advanced benchmark, with scores equal to 

or greater than 625 (see figure 2 for the cutpoint for 

each benchmark).
10

The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context

To examine how reading literacy varies across students, 

PIRLS collects information on student background characteristics. Because many background characteristics 

are unique to each jurisdiction, comparisons between 

students in the United States and students internationally are discussed only for sex in this section. In 

addition to sex, information about student race and 

ethnicity was obtained in the United States and is also 

discussed in this section.

Sex

In 2006, in all but two jurisdictions (Luxembourg and 

Spain), average scores for girls on the combined reading literacy scale were higher than average scores for 

boys (figure 5). In the United States, girls on average 

scored 10 points higher than boys (545 versus 535).9

Internationally, the average score for girls was 17 

points higher than the average score for boys.

Average scores for girls were also higher than average 

scores for boys on the literary subscale in all jurisdictions with the exception of Iran. In all but five jurisdictions (Belgium (French), Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, 

and Spain), girls had higher scores than boys on the 

informational subscale. In the United States, average 

scores for girls were 12 points higher than average 

scores for boys on the literary scale (547 versus 534) 

and 9 points higher on the informational subscale (542 

versus 532). 

Average scores for U.S. girls (545) and U.S. boys (535) 

on the combined reading literacy scale were higher 

than the international averages for girls (509) and boys 

(492). In addition, the average score for U.S. fourthgrade girls on the combined reading literacy scale was 

higher than the scores for girls in 20 jurisdictions. Girls 

in 10 jurisdictions had average scores higher than the 

average score for U.S. girls on the combined reading 

literacy scale.

The average score for U.S. boys on the combined reading literacy scale was higher than the average score for 

boys in 21 jurisdictions, and boys in 9 jurisdictions had 

average scores higher than the U.S. average.

Reading Literacy and Student Background 

Characteristics

9

The effect size for the difference between girls and boys on 

the combined reading literacy scale was .14. See appendix B 

for a discussion of effect sizes.
11

Results From the 2001 and 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

Figure 5. Difference in average scores between fourth-grade boys and girls in participating PIRLS 

jurisdictions on combined reading literacy scale, by jurisdiction: 2006

*p < .05. Average score for girls is significantly different from the average score for boys at the .05 level of statistical significance. 1

Met guidelines for sample participation rates only after replacement schools were included. See appendix B for more information about 

participation rates and the use of replacement schools in sampling.

2

Did not meet guidelines for sample participation rates after replacement schools were included. See appendix B for more information 

about participation rates and the use of replacement schools in sampling. 

3

Hong Kong, SAR, is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China.

4

Difference in average scores between boys and girls is not statistically significant. 

NOTE: Jurisdictions are ordered on the basis of score differences between boys and girls, from largest to smallest difference. Differences 

were computed using unrounded numbers.

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 

(PIRLS), 2006.

Boys score higher Girls score higher

Average score difference

Jurisdiction

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2 10 0 30 40 50 60 70

1

2

3

1

4

4

International average

Luxembourg

Spain

Belgium (French)

Hungary

Belgium (Flemish)

Italy

Germany

1 Netherlands

Canada, British Columbia

Canada, Alberta

Hong Kong, SAR

Austria

1 United States

France

Slovak Republic

Canada, Quebec

Chinese Taipei

Canada, Ontario

Romania

Moldova

Israel

Denmark

Russian Federation

Iran

Singapore

Poland

Georgia

Sweden

Morocco

Lithuania

Norway

Iceland

England

Slovenia

Indonesia

Macedonia

Bulgaria

Scotland

Canada, Nova Scotia

Latvia

New Zealand

Trinidad and Tobago

South Africa

Qatar

Kuwait 67*

37*

36*

31*

24*

23*

22*

21*

21*

21*

20*

19*

19*

19*

19*

18*

18*

18*

17*

17*

17*

15*

15*

14*

14*

14*

14*

13*

13*

13*

11*

11*

10*

10*

10*

9*

8*

7*

7*

7*

6*

5*

5*

4

3

17*
12

The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context

Table 3. Average scores for U.S. fourth-grade students on combined reading literacy scale, literary 

subscale, and informational subscale, by race/ethnicity: 2006

Scale and race/ethnicity1 2006

Combined reading literacy scale

White, non-Hispanic 560

Black, non-Hispanic 503

Hispanic 518

Asian, non-Hispanic 567

American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic 468

Other, non-Hispanic 573

Literary subscale

White, non-Hispanic 562

Black, non-Hispanic 501

Hispanic 517

Asian, non-Hispanic 569

American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic 468

Other, non-Hispanic 567

Informational subscale

White, non-Hispanic 555

Black, non-Hispanic 505

Hispanic 517

Asian, non-Hispanic 561

American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic 472

Other, non-Hispanic 571

1

The Other, non-Hispanic category includes Pacific Islander students and non-Hispanic students who identified multiple races. Students 

who identified themselves as being of Hispanic origin were classified as Hispanic, regardless of their race.

NOTE: Estimates for race/ethnicity in 2001 are not shown because the classification of racial/ethnic categories and procedures for 

collecting data on race/ethnicity changed between 2001 and 2006. The United States met guidelines for sample participation rates after 

replacement schools were included. See appendix B for more information about participation rates and the use of replacement schools in 

sampling. 

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 

(PIRLS), 2006.

10The effect size for the difference between White, nonHispanic students and Black, non-Hispanic students was .83. 

The effect size between White, non-Hispanic students and 

Hispanic students was .61. See appendix B for a discussion 

of effect sizes.

Race/ethnicity

In 2006, average scores for U.S. students on the 

combined reading literacy scale and the two literacy 

subscales measurably differed on the basis of the 

race and ethnicity of students (table 3). On the combined reading literacy scale, average scores for White, 

non-Hispanic (560); Asian, non-Hispanic (567); and 

non-Hispanic students in the racial groups classified 

as other (573) (see appendix B for race/ethnicity 

classification) were higher than the scores for Black, 

non-Hispanic (503); Hispanic (518); and American 

Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic students (468).10 

For non-Hispanic students, there were no measurable 

differences in average scores on the combined reading 

literacy scale among students in the White, Asian, and 

other groups. Hispanic students had higher average 

scores than Black, non-Hispanic students and American 

Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic students. Average 

scores for Black students were lower than the scores for 

all other non-Hispanic groups, with the exception of 

American Indian/Alaska Native students. 
13

Results From the 2001 and 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

Reading Literacy and School and Classroom 

Characteristics 

Reading literacy may differ across students along a 

variety of factors, including characteristics of the 

schools and classrooms that students attend. To help 

examine the relationship between school and classroom 

characteristics and reading literacy, PIRLS collected 

information from school administrators and teachers in 

the United States on different aspects of their schools 

and classrooms.

Note that these data, as with all data presented in 

this report, are used to describe relationships between 

variables. These data are not intended, nor can they be 

used in this context, to imply causality.

Control of school

Among U.S. students in 2006, the average score for 

students in private schools (561) was higher than the 

average score for students in public schools (538) for 

the combined reading literacy scale.11 Average scores 

for students in both U.S. public and private schools 

were higher than the PIRLS scale average (500) for the 

combined scale and the two subscales.

School poverty level

In the United States, the poverty level of a school was 

measured by asking school administrators to estimate 

the percentage of students in their schools who were 

eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (see appendix 

B for a discussion of the relationship between poverty 

levels and the National School Lunch Program). Of U.S. 

students in public schools, 2 percent were enrolled in 

schools with no students eligible for free or reducedprice lunch, 87 percent were in schools with some 

students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 

11 percent were in schools with all students eligible for 

free or reduced-price lunch.

Among U.S. students in public schools, the average 

score on the combined reading literacy scale for students in schools with no students eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch was 93 points higher than the 

average score for students in schools in which all students were eligible (figure 6). The average score for 

students in schools with some students eligible for free 

or reduced-price lunch was also higher than the average 

score for students in schools in which all students were 

eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.12

Instructional practices related to 

reading

According to reports from school administrators, 95 percent of U.S. students attended schools with informal 

initiatives to encourage reading. The percentage of U.S. 

students in schools with informal initiatives was 15 

percentage points higher than the international average 

(80 percent) and also higher than the percentage of 

students in such schools in 30 other jurisdictions.

12The effect size for the difference between the some and all 

categories of free or reduced-price lunch participation was 

.70. See appendix B for a discussion of effect sizes.

11The effect size for the difference between public and private 

schools was .33. See appendix B for a discussion of effect 

sizes.
14

The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context

As indicated in figure 7, the percentage of students in 

the United States with teachers who reported teaching 

reading for more than 6 hours per week (68 percent) 

was higher than the international average (25 percent). 

Moreover, the percentage of students in the United 

States receiving more than 6 hours of instruction per 

week was higher than the percentage of students 

receiving the same amount of instruction in all participating PIRLS jurisdictions.

Figure 7. Percentage distribution of fourthgrade students in United States and 

internationally receiving reading 

instruction each week, by average 

number of hours spent on reading 

instruction each week: 2006

*p < .05. Significantly different from international percentage 

at the .05 level of statistical significance.

NOTE: Results based on information collected from teachers. 

The United States met guidelines for sample participation 

rates after replacement schools were included. See appendix B 

for more information about participation rates and the use of 

replacement schools in sampling. Detail may not sum to totals 

because of rounding.

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy 

Study (PIRLS), 2006.

More than 3 and 

including 6 hours

Up to and 

including 3 hours

More than 

6 hours

44

31

25

10*

22*

68*

Percent

Average number of hours of reading 

instruction per week

United States Internationally

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure 6. Average scores for U.S. fourthgrade students in public schools 

on combined reading literacy scale, 

by school enrollment eligible for 

free or reduced-price lunch: 2006

NOTE: Results based on information collected from school 

administrators. The PIRLS scale average represents all participating PIRLS jurisdictions, including the United States. The 

United States met guidelines for sample participation rates 

after replacement schools were included. See appendix B for 

more information about participation rates and the use of 

replacement schools in sampling.

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy 

Study (PIRLS), 2006.

PIRLS scale

average

U.S. average

0

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

586

543

493

None Some All

Average scale score

School enrollment eligible for 

free or reduced-price lunch

Although the amount of reading instruction may 

vary across students and schools, average scores for 

U.S. students on the combined reading literacy scale 

did not measurably differ by the amount of reading 

instruction received.
15

Results From the 2001 and 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

Teacher preparation and 

experience

Teachers of sampled U.S. students reported whether 

they were certified to teach and the number of 

years they had been teaching. Nearly all U.S. fourthgrade students (99 percent) were taught by certified 

teachers; the U.S. percentage was higher than the 

international average (97 percent). Nineteen jurisdictions reported that 100 percent of their fourth-grade 

students were taught by certified teachers.

On average, U.S. fourth-grade teachers had fewer years 

of teaching experience (12 years) than the international 

average (17 years). The U.S. average was lower than the 

average years of teaching experience in 35 of the participating PIRLS jurisdictions. Average teaching experience 

was lower in the United States not only relative to most 

other participating jurisdictions but also relative to the 

last administration of PIRLS: Between 2001 and 2006, 

the average years of experience for fourth-grade teachers 

in the United States decreased from 15 to 12 years. 
16

The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context

Students in all participating PIRLS jurisdictions, including the United States, were asked to answer a variety of 

questions related to their home environment for reading. Students reported the types of materials they read 

outside of school, as well as the frequency with which 

they read these materials.

Reading activities outside of school

As indicated in table 4, students in the United States 

were more likely to read stories or novels every day or 

almost every day (36 percent) than to read for information every day or almost every day (14 percent). The 

percentage of U.S. students who read stories or novels 

every day or almost every day was 4 percentage points 

Table 4. Percentage distribution of fourth-grade students in United States and internationally who 

read stories or novels or read for information, by frequency of reading outside of school: 

2006

Frequency and type of reading United States Internationally

Stories or novels

Every day/almost every day 36* 32

Once or twice a week 28* 31

Once or twice a month 18 18

Never/almost never 18 19

Information

Every day/almost every day 14* 16

Once or twice a week 43 43

Once or twice a month 33* 29

Never/almost never 10* 12

*p < .05. Significantly different from international percentage at the .05 level of statistical significance. 

NOTE: The United States met guidelines for sample participation rates after replacement schools were included. See appendix B for more 

information about participation rates and the use of replacement schools in sampling. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 

(PIRLS), 2006.

higher than the international average. However, the 

frequency with which U.S. students read for information 

every day or almost every day was 2 percentage points 

lower than the international average.

The average score on the combined reading literacy 

scale for U.S. students who read stories or novels every 

day or almost every day (558) was higher than the average score for students who read stories or novels once 

or twice a week (541), once or twice a month (539), 

and never or almost never (509). In contrast, the average score for students who read for information every 

day or almost every day (519) was lower than the average score for students who read for information once or 

twice a week (538), once or twice a month (553), and 

never or almost never (546).

Home Environment for Reading
17

Results From the 2001 and 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

The higher performance of U.S. students who read for 

information less frequently relative to U.S. students 

who read for information more frequently was also 

observed internationally. The international average 

on the combined reading literacy scale for students 

who read for information once or twice a week was 

503, the average for students who read for information once or twice a month was 506, and the average 

for students who read for information never or almost 

never was 496. In contrast, the international average 

13Estimates and standard errors for international comparisons 

are available in Mullis et al. (2007).

on the combined reading literacy scale for students 

who read for information every day or almost every 

day was 492.13

Note that these data, as with all data presented in 

this report, are used to describe relationships between 

variables. These data are not intended, nor can they be 

used in this context, to imply causality.
18

The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context

References

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 

Associates.

Johnson, E.G., and Rust, K.F. (1992). Population Inferences and Variance for NAEP Data. Journal of Educational 

Statistics, 17(2): 175–190. 

Krotki, K., and Bland, J. (2007). PIRLS 2006 Nonresponse Bias Analysis Report (NCES 2008-019). U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., and Kennedy, A.M. (2007). PIRLS 2006 Technical Report. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS and 

PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College. 

Mullis, I.V.S., Kennedy, A.M., Martin, M.O., and Sainsbury, M. (2006). PIRLS 2006: Assessment Framework and 

Specifications (2nd ed.). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of 

Education, Boston College.

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Kennedy, A.M., and Foy, P. (2007). PIRLS 2006 International Report: IEA’s Progress In 

International Reading Literacy Study in Primary Schools in 40 Countries. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS and PIRLS 

International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.

Ogle, L.T., Sen, A., Pahlke, E., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg, D., Roey, S., and Williams, T. (2003). International Comparisons 

in Fourth-Grade Reading Literacy: Findings from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) of 

2001 (NCES 2003-073). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department 

of Education. Washington, DC.

Rosnow, R. L., and Rosenthal, R. (1996). Computing Contrasts, Effect Sizes, and Counternulls on Other People’s 

Published Data: General Procedures for Research Consumers. Psychological Methods, 1, 331-340.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1999). Operational Manual for ISCED1997. Paris: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
19

This appendix contains a sample reading passage from 

PIRLS 2006 as well as several of the assessment items 

associated with the passage. The assessment items 

show actual student responses and also compare the 

performance of U.S. fourth-grade students on the item 

Appendix A: Sample Items From PIRLS 2006

with the international average. The items demonstrate 

acceptable performance across the PIRLS international 

benchmarks (low, intermediate, high, and advanced). 

The reading passage and all associated items have been 

publicly released by the IEA.

Reading passage continued on the next page.
20

The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context

Appendix A: Sample Items From PIRLS 2006
Appendix A: Sample Items From PIRLS 2006 21

Results From the 2001 and 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

Figure A-1. Example A of item at PIRLS low international benchmark: 2006

1 Point: Full-credit sample response

*p < .05. Significantly different from international average at the .05 level of statistical significance.

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 

(PIRLS), 2006.

Percentage of students 

earning full-credit

International average 77

United States 83*

Figure A-2. Example B of item at PIRLS low international benchmark: 2006

1 Point: Full-credit sample response

*p < .05. Significantly different from international average at the .05 level of statistical significance.

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 

(PIRLS), 2006.

Percentage of students 

earning full-credit

International average 69

United States 61*
22

The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context

Appendix A: Sample Items From PIRLS 2006

Figure A-4. Example of item at PIRLS high international benchmark: 2006

2 out of 2 Points: Full-credit sample response

*p < .05. Significantly different from international average at the .05 level of statistical significance.

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 

(PIRLS), 2006.

Percentage of students 

earning full-credit

International average 41

United States 54*

Figure A-3. Example of item at PIRLS intermediate international benchmark: 2006

1 Point: Full-credit sample response

*p < .05. Significantly different from international average at the .05 level of statistical significance.

 SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 

(PIRLS), 2006.

Percentage of students 

earning full-credit

International average 67

United States 79*
Appendix A: Sample Items From PIRLS 2006 23

Results From the 2001 and 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

Figure A-5. Example of item at PIRLS advanced international benchmark: 2006 

3 out of 3 Points: Full-credit sample response

*p < .05. Significantly different from international average at the .05 level of statistical significance.

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 

(PIRLS), 2006.

Percentage of students 

earning full-credit

International average 16

United States 22*
Page intentionally left blank
25

Introduction

This appendix describes the sampling, data collection, 

test development and administration, weighting and 

variance estimation, scaling, and statistical testing 

procedures used to collect and analyze the data for the 

2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 

(PIRLS). Forty-five jurisdictions participated in PIRLS 

2006, which collected data on the reading literacy of 

students in their fourth year of schooling (fourth-grade 

students in most participating jurisdictions, including 

the United States).

PIRLS 2006 is the second administration of the study, 

which was first administered in 2001. The study is 

conducted by the International Association for the 

Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), with 

national sponsors in each participating jurisdiction. 

In the United States, PIRLS is sponsored by the 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), in the 

Institute of Education Sciences in the U.S. Department 

of Education. Further information about the technical 

aspects of the assessment are available in the international PIRLS 2006 technical report (Martin, Mullis, and 

Kennedy 2007).

Sampling, data collection, and 

response rate benchmarks

The PIRLS 2006 international project team instituted a 

series of sampling, data collection, and response rate 

benchmarks to ensure international comparability and 

to provide the ability to produce precise estimates of 

the main criterion variables for all jurisdictions. 

The target population for PIRLS was defined by IEA 

using the International Standard Classification of 

Education (ISCED), developed by the United Nations 

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization 

(UNESCO 1999). The target population of interest was 

all students enrolled in the grade corresponding to the 

fourth year of schooling, beginning with ISCED Level 

1. For most jurisdictions, this was the fourth grade or 

its national equivalent. This definition is different from 

the one used in 2001, which targeted students in the 

upper of the two grades that include the most 9-yearolds, which in most jurisdictions was the fourth grade. 

Table B-1 provides information on ISCED levels for the 

United States.

Appendix B: Technical Notes

Table B-1. International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) levels, definitions, and U.S. 

equivalents in preprimary through 12th grade

ISCED level Definition U.S. equivalent

0 Preprimary Kindergarten and below

1 Primary 1st–6th grades

2 Lower secondary 7th–9th grades

3 Upper secondary 10th–12th grades or first 3 years of vocational education

SOURCE: Matheson, N., Salganik, L., Phelps, R., Perie, M., Alsalam, N., and Smith, T., (1996). Education Indicators: An International Perspective. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
26

The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context

Appendix B: Technical Notes

Standardized procedures for sampling were developed 

by IEA and disseminated in a school sampling manual. 

Statistics Canada was responsible for approving the 

designs and verifying the samples of all participating 

jurisdictions. The basic sample design called for a twostage stratified cluster design, with schools selected 

at the first stage and classrooms at the second stage. 

Schools were sampled using a probability proportionate to size sampling method. Within each jurisdiction 

150 schools were selected. Information on the number 

of classrooms containing fourth-grade students, and 

the size of the classes, were collected from participating schools and entered into the within school sampling software provided by IEA. In most jurisdictions, 

one or two classes per school were randomly selected 

using this software. All students in sampled classrooms were selected. 

IEA also established sample size and response rate 

targets for all jurisdictions. As table B-2 shows, the 

response rate target for schools was set at 85 percent, 

with a minimum participation rate among “original 

sample schools” of 50 percent. When the original 

sample was drawn, the schools immediately before and 

immediately after each sampled school on the sampling 

frame were designated “replacement” schools and were 

contacted if the original sample school refused to participate. The response rate target for classrooms was 

95 percent, and the target student response rate was 

set at 85 percent. In addition, classrooms with student 

participation below 50 percent were to be rejected from 

inclusion with the final data. Substitution of sampled 

classrooms was not permitted, and the school would be 

classified as a non-respondent if no other classrooms 

had been sampled. No U.S. schools were classified as 

non-respondents on the basis of these criteria.

The IEA’s minimum acceptable rate for overall sample 

participation after replacement (the product of the 

school participation rate and the student participation rate) was 75 percent. In 2006, the overall sample participation rate for Norway was 71 percent. 

Consequently, all data reported for Norway in this report 

have the following footnote: “Did not meet guidelines 

for sample participation rates after replacement schools 

were included.”

The goal of the study was to provide 95 percent coverage of the target population within each jurisdiction. 

Jurisdictions that excluded more than 5 percent of 

students for any reason are noted in the international 

report as having less than full coverage of the target 

population.

Sampling, data collection, and 

response rates in the United States 

Sampling 

The PIRLS sample in the United States was designed 

to be representative of all fourth-grade students in the 

50 states and the District of Columbia. In addition to 

the base sample (designed to yield 150 participating 

schools), the United States sampled additional private 

schools and high-poverty schools, defined as those 

schools in which 50 percent or more of students were 

Table B-2. IEA minimum sample size and unweighted response rate targets for participating PIRLS 

jurisdictions: 2006

Group Minimum sample size (number) Unweighted response rate (percent)

Schools 150 851

Classrooms 1 per sampled school 95

Teachers 1 per sampled school 85

Students 4,500 85

1

At least 50 percent must be original sample schools.

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 

(PIRLS), 2006.
Appendix B: Technical Notes 27

Results From the 2001 and 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch in order 

to increase the precision of the estimates for these 

subgroups. The U.S. sample was designed to yield 180 

participating schools.

The PIRLS school sample was drawn in March 2005. The 

sampling frame was constructed using data from the 

2002–03 Common Core of Data (CCD) and Preliminary 

Data 2003–04 Private School Universe Survey (PSS).

To be consistent with the sampling design for PIRLS 

2001, the frame was divided into two parts: (1) One 

stratum was created that included schools located in 

the 10 most populous Metropolitan Statistical Areas 

(MSAs); (2) all schools outside those MSAs were grouped 

into 451 Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) by sorting on 

MSA and then by the Federal Information Processing 

Standards (FIPS) code. PSUs were designed to fit within 

state boundaries and, where possible, within county 

and city boundaries. In the United States, schools were 

sorted by state, percentage of racial/ethnic minority 

students, control of school (public/private), percentage 

of students eligible for free or reduced-priced lunch, 

and locale before the selection process.

Locale was determined on the basis of a sampled 

school’s address. School addresses were classified into 

one of three categories (central city, urban fringe/large 

town, or rural/small town) using the NCES locale code 

system in use at the time of sampling. The locale code 

system used the following designations:

• Large city: A central city of a Consolidated 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) or MSA, with 

the city having a population greater than or equal 

to 250,000. 

• Midsize city: A central city of a CMSA or MSA, with 

the city having a population less than 250,000. 

• Urban fringe of a large city: Any territory within a 

CMSA or MSA of a large city and defined as urban 

by the Census Bureau. 

• Urban fringe of a midsize city: Any territory within 

a CMSA or MSA of a midsize city and defined as 

urban by the Census Bureau. 

• Large town: An incorporated place or Census-designated place with a population greater than or equal 

to 25,000 and located outside a CMSA or MSA. 

• Small town: An incorporated place or Census-designated place with a population less than 25,000 and 

greater than or equal to 2,500 and located outside 

a CMSA or MSA. 

• Rural, Outside MSA: Any territory designated as 

rural by the Census Bureau that is outside a CMSA 

or MSA of a large or midsize city. 

• Rural, Inside MSA: Any territory designated as rural 

by the Census Bureau that is within a CMSA or MSA 

of a large or midsize city. 

For this analysis, large city and midsize city were combined to form central city; urban fringe of a large city, 

urban fringe of a midsize city, and large town were 

combined to form urban fringe/large town; and small 

town, rural, outside MSA, and rural, inside MSA were 

combined to form rural/small town. 

Within each selected PSU or MSA stratum, schools were 

selected on the basis of the number of fourth-grade students in the school so that larger schools had a higher 

probability of selection than smaller schools. The final 

sample included 222 schools; 152 were chosen from 

PSUs and 70 were selected from the MSA stratum. The 

target number of students was designed to be similar 

across schools, both large and small, correcting for the 

greater likelihood of selection of large schools.

Data collection 

School contacting began in April 2005, approximately 

1 year prior to data collection. The suggested testing window for PIRLS in the southern hemisphere was 

October through December, 2005, and in the northern 

hemisphere it was March through June, 2006. The 

United States was allowed to begin early (on January 

23) to accommodate schools that wished to participate before state-mandated tests occurred. Many U.S. 

schools also asked to participate after completing state 

tests, and so the United States was allowed to continue 
28

The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context

Appendix B: Technical Notes

testing through June 9, 2006, resulting in a 41⁄2 month 

test window rather than the more typical 1 to 2 month 

test window. The mean score of students completing the 

exam in January through March was 539.5, which was 

not significantly different from the score (541.1) of the 

students completing the exam in April through June. 

Response rates 

Of the 222 sampled schools, 214 were eligible for inclusion in PIRLS. Eight schools had closed and were designated ineligible. Of the 214 eligible original sample 

schools, 120 participated (57 percent weighted). An 

additional 63 replacement schools were contacted and 

agreed to participate, for a total of 183 schools, or a 

weighted response rate, using final adjusted weights, of 

86 percent of eligible schools.1 Of the 120 participating 

schools from the original sample, 88 (73 percent) were 

from the PSU sample, while 40 of the 63 participating replacement schools (63 percent) were from the 

PSU sample. The United States met the international 

guidelines for school response rate, but only after using 

replacement schools.

Information on the number and size of classrooms 

containing fourth-grade students was collected from 

all participating schools. One or two classrooms were 

randomly selected from each school depending on the 

size of the school. Of the 256 classrooms sampled, 255 

participated, or 99 percent. There were 5,601 fourthgrade students enrolled in the selected classrooms; 

159 of these students were excluded from testing (see 

“Exclusions” for more information). Within these classrooms, 5,442 students were eligible, and 5,190 completed 

the assessment, for a weighted student response rate of 

95 percent. The United States met the international 

guidelines for classroom and student response rates.

In addition to having students complete the assessment 

and a questionnaire, PIRLS asked teachers and school 

administrators to complete questionnaires. Of the 256 

teachers sampled, 249 completed teacher questionnaires, or 97 percent. Among school administrators, 

182 of the 183 questionnaires were completed, for a 

response rate of 99 percent.

Table B-3 presents information on the total number of 

participating schools, students assessed, and overall 

weighted response rates after replacement in all jurisdictions that participated in PIRLS. 

Exclusions 

Schools that were very small or that were classified as 

special education, vocational, or alternative schools 

(private and public) could be excluded from the sampling frame. In the United States these schools enrolled 

3.2 percent of the expected number of fourth-grade 

students. Table B-4 shows the percentage of students 

excluded from the sample in 2001 and 2006.

International guidelines recognized that some students 

might not be eligible for inclusion in PIRLS because 

of limited exposure to the language of assessment 

(English in the case of the United States) or the need 

for special testing accommodations.

Within classrooms, students were excluded from 

participation in PIRLS if they met the criteria established by the IEA: 

• Functionally disabled students. These are students 

who are permanently physically disabled in such a 

way that they cannot perform in the PIRLS testing 

situation. Functionally disabled students who could 

perform were included in the testing.

• Intellectually disabled students. These are students 

who are con­sidered in the professional opinion of 

the school administrator or by other qualified staff 

members to be intellectually disabled or who have 

been psychologically tested as such. This includes 

students who are emotionally or mentally unable to 

1

All weighted response rates discussed in this report refer to 

final adjusted weights. Response rates were calculated using 

the formula developed by the IEA for PIRLS. The standard 

NCES formula for computing response rates would result in a 

lower school response rate of approximately 63 percent.
Appendix B: Technical Notes 29

Results From the 2001 and 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

Table B-3. Total number of participating schools, students assessed, and overall weighted response rates, 

by participating PIRLS jurisdictions: 2006 

 Total number of Total number of Overall weighted

 participating students response

Jurisdiction schools assessed rate

Austria 158 5,067 97

Belgium (Flemish) 137 4,479 91

Belgium (French) 150 4,552 95

Bulgaria 143 3,863 94

Canada, Alberta 150 4,243 96

Canada, British Columbia 148 4,150 94

Canada, Nova Scotia 201 4,436 96

Canada, Ontario 180 3,988 87

Canada, Quebec 185 3,748 81

Chinese Taipei 150 4,589 99

Denmark 145 4,001 96

England 148 4,036 92

France 169 4,404 95

Georgia 149 4,402 98

Germany 405 7,899 92

Hong Kong, SAR 144 4,712 97

Hungary 149 4,068 97

Iceland 128 3,673 90

Indonesia 168 4,774 98

Iran 236 5,411 99

Israel 149 3,908 93

Italy 150 3,581 97

Kuwait 149 3,958 88

Latvia 147 4,162 92

Lithuania 146 4,701 92

Luxembourg 178 5,101 99

Macedonia 150 4,002 96

Moldova 150 4,036 95

Morocco 159 3,249 94

Netherlands 139 4,156 90

New Zealand 243 6,256 95

Norway 135 3,837 71

Poland 148 4,854 95

Qatar 119 6,680 94

Romania 146 4,273 97

Russian Federation 232 4,720 97

Scotland 130 3,775 81

Singapore 178 6,390 95

Slovak Republic 167 5,380 94

Slovenia 145 5,337 93

South Africa 397 14,657 88

Spain 152 4,094 97

Sweden 147 4,394 96

Trinidad and Tobago 147 3,951 94

United States 183 5,190 82

NOTE: The overall weighted response rate is the product of the school participation rate, after replacement, and the student participation rate, 

after replacement. 

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), 

2006.
30

The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context

Appendix B: Technical Notes

Table B-4. Percentage of U.S. students 

excluded from PIRLS at the 

school-listing level and studentlisting level: 2001 and 2006

Level 2001 2006

 Total 5.3 5.9

Excluded at the school listing level 0.6 3.2

Excluded at the student listing level 4.7 2.8

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy 

Study (PIRLS), 2001 and 2006.

follow the general instructions of the test. Students 

were not excluded solely because of poor academic 

performance or normal disciplinary problems.

• Non-native language speakers. These are students 

who are unable to read or speak the language of 

the test and would be unable to overcome the language barrier in the test situation. Typically, students who received less than 1 year of instruction 

in the language of the test were to be excluded, 

but this definition could be adapted in different 

jurisdictions. In the United States, students who 

had received less than 1 year of English instruction 

were defined as non-native language speakers.

In the United States, 2.8 percent of students were 

excluded from PIRLS on the basis of these criteria. In 

keeping with international protocol, no testing accommodations were offered to students.

The overall exclusion rate was 5.9 percent in the United 

States, which means that the overall U.S. coverage rate 

is .09 percent below the recommended 95 percent. Other 

jurisdictions that had exclusion rates above 5.0 percent 

included Bulgaria (6.4); the province of Ontario, Canada 

(8.3); Israel (22.5); Italy (5.3); Lithuania (5.1); New 

Zealand (5.3); and the Russian Federation (7.7).

the 120 responding original sample schools was compared with that of the total sample of eligible original 

schools. All original schools in the sample that declined 

to participate in the study were treated as nonparticipants regardless of whether they were substituted by a 

replacement school. In the second part, replacement 

schools were included in the analysis, reflecting the final 

sample of schools that participated in PIRLS 2006.

Seven variables were examined using the original 

sample, the participating schools from the original sample, and the participating schools in the 

final sample: (1) public/private school control, 

(2) locale, (3) region, (4) percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, (5) total school 

enrollment, (6) fourth-grade enrollment, and (7) relative 

enrollment of racial and ethnic groups (White, nonHispanic; Black, non-Hispanic; Hispanic; Asian or Pacific 

Islander; American Indian or Alaska Native; and other).

Measures of bias and relative bias were computed, and 

the hypothesis of independence between the characteristic and participation status was tested using 

chi-square statistics. In addition, logistic regression 

models were used to evaluate whether any of these 

characteristics were significant in predicting response 

status. A comparison of the participating schools from 

the original sample with the total eligible sample of 

schools found that school composition was significantly 

different across the two groups: the mean percentage 

of Asian students in schools in the eligible sample was 

3.5 percent, while among participating original sample 

schools it was 2.4 percent; the measure of bias is 1.07. 

No other variables were found to differ significantly 

between these two groups.

In the second analysis, the final sample of all participating schools (both original and replacement) was 

compared to the total eligible sample. In this analysis, 

the percentage of Asian students in the school was 

not significantly different between the two groups. 

However, the number of fourth-grade students enrolled 

in the school was related to nonresponse. Schools with 

fewer students enrolled in fourth grade (schools with 

an average of 67 students in the fourth grade) were 

Nonresponse bias analysis

The analysis of school nonresponse was conducted in 

two parts. The basis for both analyses was the original 

sample of 214 eligible schools. First, the distribution of 
Appendix B: Technical Notes 31

Results From the 2001 and 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

less likely to participate than larger schools (schools 

with an average of 71.2 students in fourth grade); the 

measure of bias is 4.17. It is unclear whether this bias 

has any impact on student achievement scores. More 

detailed information on nonresponse bias analysis, 

including item nonresponse analysis, can be found in 

Krotki and Bland (2007).

Test development 

The International Study Center (ISC), which organized 

and managed the international components of PIRLS, 

developed an assessment framework used to guide the 

test development process (Mullis et al. 2006). PIRLS 

was designed to assess two purposes of reading: reading for literary experience and reading to acquire and 

use information. In addition, the PIRLS assessment 

evaluates four processes of comprehension: (1) to focus 

on and retrieve explicitly stated information; (2) to 

make straightforward inferences; (3) to interpret and 

integrate ideas and information; and (4) to examine 

and evaluate content, language, and textual elements.

Jurisdictions participating in PIRLS 2006 were invited 

to submit reading passages to be used in the test. Two 

types of passages were sought: literary texts, which 

were typically narrative fiction, and informational 

texts, which could include biographies, step-by-step 

directions, informational leaflets, and scientific or 

other nonfictional material. All passages were to be 

authentic texts typical of the reading material in 

their jurisdictions, well suited to fourth-grade students, and no longer than 1,000 words. The national 

research coordinators from participating jurisdictions 

were asked to review the texts and work together 

to agree on a shortened list of passages to be illustrated and formatted. Questions for each passage were 

refined by PIRLS project staff and reviewed by a group 

of reading experts. Each reading passage, including 

text and questions, was designed to be completed in 

40 minutes. 

Twelve new passages were created and tested during 

a field trial in spring 2005. Item statistics, including 

item difficulties, point biserial correlations, and item 

discrimination statistics, were calculated for each item 

for each jurisdiction. After a careful review of the quality of all items across jurisdictions, 6 of these passages, 

3 literary and 3 informational, were selected for the 

main study. 

These passages, along with 4 passages from PIRLS 

2001, were used to create the test booklets for the 

main study. The same 10 passages were used in all 

participating PIRLS jurisdictions. Each test booklet 

contained 2 reading passages. Students were given 40 

minutes to complete each passage, or 80 minutes in 

all. The passages were distributed across 13 booklet 

types. Students were asked to answer a number of items 

related to each passage, including both multiple-choice 

and constructed-response items. The distribution of the 

items by type of passage and type of item is shown in 

table B-5. 

In addition to the assessment, students were asked to 

complete a 20-minute questionnaire. The questionnaire 

included items about students’ reading experiences in 

Table B-5. Distribution of items on the PIRLS 2006 assessment 

 Total Total

Reading Multiple- number score

purpose choice items 1 point 2 points 3 points of items points

 Total 64 28 27 7 126 167

Literary 34 13 13 4 64 85

Informational 30 15 14 3 62 82

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 

(PIRLS), 2006.

Constructed-response items
32

The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context

Appendix B: Technical Notes

school, self-perception and attitudes toward reading, 

out-of-school reading habits and computer use, home 

literacy resources, and basic demographic information.

Translation 

Source versions of all instruments (assessment booklets, 

questionnaires, and manuals) were prepared in English 

and then translated into the primary language or languages of instruction in each jurisdiction. In addition, 

it was sometimes necessary to adapt the instrument 

for cultural purposes, even in jurisdictions such as the 

United States that use English as the primary language 

of instruction. For example, words such as “lift” might 

be adapted to “elevator” for the United States. The IEA 

and ISC verified the translations and adaptations used 

by all participating jurisdictions. Certified translators 

were retained by the IEA to compare national versions 

with the source versions of all documents.

Test administration and quality 

assurance 

PIRLS 2006 emphasized the use of standardized procedures in all jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction was 

responsible for its own data collection; however, the 

IEA insisted that all jurisdictions use the procedures 

and materials developed by the international project 

team. The ISC developed standardized survey operations 

manuals that were used in all jurisdictions, as well as 

manuals for participating schools and test administrators, to ensure that data collection processes were consistent across jurisdictions. In addition, jurisdictions 

used standardized listing forms for student participation and standardized session report forms.

Test administration in the United States was carried out 

by a professional staff trained according to the international guidelines. School personnel were asked to assist 

with listing classrooms and students, selecting a test 

day, and selecting the parental consent procedures to 

be used at that school. Test administrators were responsible for all other aspects of the administration. 

The ISC conducted quality monitoring visits at approximately 15 sampled schools in each jurisdiction. The 

international quality monitors were trained by the 

staff of the ISC and the IEA Secretariat. After each 

visit, the quality monitor completed a standard form 

describing the test session and any deviations from 

international protocols.

In addition, each jurisdiction was encouraged to conduct its own national quality monitoring operation. In 

the United States, a sample of 10 percent of schools 

was selected for monitoring. Project staff and field 

supervisory staff visited selected schools during the 

assessment administration and completed a classroom 

observation record immediately after the visit.

Both international and national quality monitors were 

asked to verify that student and class lists were prepared correctly by the school personnel; verify the 

completeness and security of the test booklets; check 

when possible that the international guidelines concerning the exclusion of students had been properly 

followed; keep an independent record of session timing; verify adherence to the script and instructions 

outlined in the test administrator manual; check that 

materials were distributed correctly; indicate whether 

the students were cooperative during the test session; 

and note whether the test administrator monitored 

that students were working in the correct section of 

the test booklet. 

Scoring 

PIRLS contained a large number of constructed-response 

items, as discussed in the test development section. 

The process of scoring these items was an important 

step in ensuring the quality and cross-jurisdiction 

comparability of the PIRLS data. Detailed guidelines 

were developed for the scoring guides themselves, and 

training materials were prepared including an extensive 

set of anchor and practice papers. These materials were 

prepared by the ISC with the advice and guidance of an 

international group of experts. 
Appendix B: Technical Notes 33

Results From the 2001 and 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

In spring 2006, the ISC organized an international training session to present the material and train the scoring 

coordinators from participating jurisdictions, who in 

turn trained the national scorers. For each test item, 

the scoring guide described the intent of the question 

and how to code students’ responses to each item. 

This description included guidelines for assigning full 

credit, partial credit, or no credit for each item. During 

the training session, PIRLS staff discussed the scoring guidelines for each item and reviewed the anchor 

papers (selected examples of real student answers) for 

each item. Trainees were asked to complete the practice 

papers, and the answers were then discussed.

The criteria described in the scoring guides related 

only to evidence of reading comprehension. Students’ 

writing abilities were not evaluated. A student could 

receive a high score for an item if the ideas expressed 

in the response exhibited a high level of understanding, even if the response contained misspellings or 

grammatical errors. Given that PIRLS was a timed test, 

responses were considered “first-draft writing.”

The reliability of coding was assessed in three ways. 

First, to establish within-jurisdiction scoring reliability, 

it was necessary for two different scorers to independently score a random sample of 200 responses for 

each constructed-response item. The degree of agreement between the scores assigned by the two scorers 

was a measure of the reliability of the scoring process. 

The average of each percent agreement across items 

was 93 percent, both for the United States and the 

international average. Second, international scoring 

reliability was assessed by having each jurisdiction use 

the IEA’s Cross-Country Scoring Reliability software to 

score a common set of answers selected from field test 

and PIRLS 2001 responses. Finally, in jurisdictions that 

participated in both 2001 and 2006, the staff scoring 

the 2006 responses were also asked to score a sample 

of 2001 responses. The scores assigned in 2006 were 

then compared with the actual scores assigned to those 

responses in 2001. Information on trend and crossjurisdiction reliability is available in the international 

technical report (Martin et al. 2007).

Data entry and cleaning

The national research coordinator for each jurisdiction 

assumed responsibility for data entry. All data were 

entered into a data entry system developed by the IEA 

Data Processing Center (IEA-DPC) with a number of builtin data quality checks. In addition, each jurisdiction was 

required to run a number of validity checks (e.g., checking the links among teachers, schools, and students) 

before delivering the data to the IEA-DPC. The IEA-DPC 

conducted a number of additional cleaning steps before 

providing each jurisdiction with a version of the cleaned 

data to be reviewed and accepted by the jurisdiction. 

The U.S. data were cleared through this process and no 

major issues were found.

Weighting and variance estimation

Using sampling weights is necessary for computing 

statistically sound, nationally representative estimates. 

Survey weights help adjust for the intentional over- or 

undersampling of certain sectors of the population, 

school or student nonresponse, or errors in estimating 

the size of a school at the time of sampling. Survey 

weighting for the entire international PIRLS 2006 

sample was carried out by Statistics Canada.

The internationally defined weighting specifications 

for PIRLS required that each assessed student’s sampling weight be the product of six weighting factors: 

the inverse of the school’s probability of selection, an 

adjustment for school-level nonresponse, the inverse 

of the classroom’s probability of selection, an adjustment for classroom-level nonresponse, the inverse of 

the student’s probability of selection (always equal to 

1 because whole classrooms were selected), and an 

adjustment of student-level nonresponse.

The statistics presented in this report are estimates of 

group and subgroup performance based on a sample of 

fourth-graders, rather than the values that could be calculated if every fourth-grader answered every question 

on the instrument. It is therefore important to have 
34

The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context

Appendix B: Technical Notes

measures of the degree of uncertainty of the estimates. 

Accordingly, in addition to providing estimates of percentages of respondents and their average scale score, 

this report provides information about the uncertainty 

of each statistic. 

Because PIRLS used clustered sampling, conventional 

formulas for estimating sampling variability that assume 

simple random sampling and hence independence of 

observations are inappropriate. For this reason, PIRLS 

used a jackknife repeated replication method (Johnson 

and Rust 1992) to estimate standard errors that capture 

the sampling variance.

Scaling and plausible values

Each student who completed the PIRLS assessment read 

2 passages, rather than all 10 passages developed for 

the study, to keep individual response burden to a minimum. PIRLS used a matrix-sampling design to assign 

passages to booklets. Item Response Theory (IRT) was 

then used to combine these responses to provide accurate estimates of reading achievement in the student 

population in each jurisdiction. 

As was done in 2001, PIRLS used three distinct scaling 

models: a three-parameter model for multiple-choice 

items, a two-parameter model for constructed-response 

items that were scored as correct or incorrect, and a 

partial credit model for constructed-response items with 

more than two score points.

Because each student completed only a limited set 

of items, plausible values were calculated to estimate 

student-level scores. PIRLS generated five possible 

scale scores for each student, which represented selections from the distribution of scale scores of students 

with similar backgrounds who answered the assessment 

items the same way. The plausible values methodology 

is one way to ensure that the estimates of the mean 

performance of student subpopulations and the estimates of variability in those means are more accurate 

than those determined through traditional procedures, 

which estimate a single score for each student. During 

the construction of plausible values, careful quality 

control steps ensure that the subpopulation estimates 

based on these plausible values are accurate. 

It is important to recognize that plausible values are 

not test scores for individuals, and they should not be 

treated as such. Plausible values are randomly drawn 

from the distribution of scores that could be reasonably assigned to each individual. As such, the plausible 

values contain random error variance components and 

are not optimal as scores for individuals. The PIRLS 

student file contains 15 plausible values per student, 

5 for each of the three scales (the combined reading 

literacy scale, the literary subscale, and the informational subscale). If an analysis is to be undertaken 

with one of these scales, then (ideally) the analysis 

should be undertaken five times, once with each of 

the 5 relevant plausible value variables. The results of 

these five analyses are averaged, and then significance 

tests that adjust for variation between the five sets of 

results are computed.

Descriptions of background variables

In the United States, background questionnaires were 

administered to students, school administrators, and 

teachers. The information collected from the background questionnaires provides a context for interpreting the results from the assessment. The following 

background variables are presented in this report:

Sex

Students were asked to indicate whether they were a 

boy or a girl.

Race/ethnicity

School administrators were asked to classify the race/

ethnicity of each sampled student into one or more of 

the following categories:
Appendix B: Technical Notes 35

Results From the 2001 and 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian

American Indian/Alaska Native

Pacific Islander

For reporting, all students who were identified as 

Hispanic by their school’s administrator were classified 

as Hispanic, regardless of their race. The remaining 

categories include only students who were identified 

as non-Hispanic. The other, non-Hispanic category 

includes non-Hispanic students identified as Pacific 

Islander as well as those non-Hispanic students identified as belonging to multiple racial groups. Because the 

number of Pacific Islander and multiple-race students 

was each too small to report separately (fewer than 30 

students in each group), the two groups were combined 

into the other, non-Hispanic category.

In 2001, data about the race and ethnicity of students 

were collected directly from student responses. The 

2001 student background questionnaire also defined 

White and Black as White (not Hispanic) and Black 

(not Hispanic), respectively. Because the classification 

of racial/ethnic categories and procedures for collecting data on race/ethnicity changed between 2001 and 

2006, no comparisons between racial/ethnic groups in 

2001 and 2006 are presented in this report.

School poverty level

In this report, the percentage of students in schools 

eligible for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) 

is used as a measure of a school’s poverty level. The 

guidelines for the NSLP stipulate that children from 

families with incomes at or below 130 percent of 

the federal poverty level are eligible for free meals, 

while those between 130 percent and 185 percent of 

the federal poverty level are qualified for reducedprice meals. (For the period July 1, 2005, through 

June 30, 2006, for a family of four, 130 percent of 

the poverty level was $25,155 per year, and 185 

percent was $35,798. See http://www.fns.usda.gov/

cnd/lunch/ for more information.)

Information about the poverty level of a school was collected from school administrators. Administrators were 

asked to indicate the percentage of students in their 

schools eligible for free or reduced-price lunch using 

the following categories: All, Some, or None.

Data limitations 

As with any study, there are limitations to PIRLS that 

researchers should take into consideration. Estimates 

produced using data from PIRLS are subject to two 

types of error: nonsampling errors and sampling errors. 

Nonsampling errors can be due to errors made in the 

collection and processing of data. Sampling errors can 

occur because the data were collected from a sample 

rather than a complete census of the population. In 

addition to sampling errors, researchers should also 

be aware of missing data issues and how these issues 

were addressed.

Nonsampling errors

Nonsampling error is a term used to describe variations 

in the estimates that may be caused by population 

coverage limitations, nonresponse bias, and measurement error, as well as data collection, processing, and 

reporting procedures. For example, the sampling frame 

was limited to regular public and private schools in 

the 50 states and the District of Columbia and did not 

include Puerto Rico or the U.S. Trust Territories. The 

sources of nonsampling errors are typically problems 

such as unit and item nonresponse, the differences 

in respondents’ interpretations of the meaning of the 

survey questions, response differences related to the 

particular time the survey was conducted, and mistakes 

in data preparation. Some of these issues (particularly 

unit nonresponse) are discussed above in the section 

entitled “Sampling, data collection, and response rates 

in the United States.” Note that this is a school-based 

sample; home-schooled children are not included.
36

The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context

Appendix B: Technical Notes

It is difficult to identify and estimate either the amount 

of nonsampling error or the bias caused by this error. 

In PIRLS, efforts were made to prevent such errors from 

occurring and to compensate for them when possible. 

For example, the design phase entailed a field test that 

evaluated items as well as the implementation procedures for the survey. It should also be recognized that 

background information was obtained from students’ 

self-reports, which are subject to several different forms 

of response bias.

Sampling errors

Sampling errors occur when a discrepancy between 

a population characteristic and the sample estimate 

arises because not all members of the target population 

are sampled for the survey. Both the size of the sample 

relative to the population and the variability of the 

population characteristics influence the magnitude of 

sampling error. The particular sample of students drawn 

in March 2005 was just one of many possible samples 

that could have been selected. Therefore, estimates 

produced from the PIRLS 2006 sample may differ from 

estimates that would have been produced had another 

sample of fourth-grade students been selected. This 

type of variability is called sampling error because it 

arises from using a sample of fourth-grade students in 

2006 rather than all fourth-grade students that year.

Missing data

Items with missing data were designated with one 

of four missing data codes: (1) omitted response or 

uninterpretable, (2) not administered, (3) not reached, 

and (4) not applicable. An “omitted response” occurred 

when a respondent was expected to answer an item 

but gave no response. An item was coded as “uninterpretable” if some type of response was given but 

it was either invalid or unreadable. Items that were 

not administered, either by design or by error (e.g., 

a printing problem), were coded as “not administered.” 

For assessment questions, the missing data code “not 

reached” was assigned for consecutive missing values 

starting from the end of the assessment passage. In the 

questionnaire data files, a code of “not applicable” was 

assigned to items that respondents were instructed to 

skip. All five kinds of missing data were coded distinctly 

in the PIRLS database.

Background data were not imputed for cases with missing data. Item response rates for variables discussed in 

this report were over the NCES standard of 85 percent 

(weighted) to report without notation.

Confidentiality and limitations 

disclosure

The PIRLS data are hierarchical and include school, 

teacher, and student data from the participating schools. 

Confidentiality analyses for the United States were 

designed to provide reasonable assurance that public-use 

data files issued by the IEA would not allow the identification of individual U.S. schools, students, or teachers 

when compared against public-use data collections. 

Disclosure limitation included identifying and masking 

potential disclosure risk to PIRLS schools and adding an 

additional measure of uncertainty to school and student 

identification through random swapping of data elements within the student, teacher, and school files.

Statistical procedures

Tests of significance

All comparisons discussed in this report have been 

tested for statistical significance using the t statistic. 

Statistical significance was determined by calculating a 

t value for the difference between a pair of means, or 

proportions, and comparing this value with published 

tables of values at a certain level of significance, called 

the alpha level. The alpha level is an a priori statement 

of the probability of inferring that a difference exists 

when, in fact, it does not. The alpha level used in this 

report is .05, based on a two-tailed test.
Appendix B: Technical Notes 37

Results From the 2001 and 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

The calculation of the t statistic varied depending on 

the type of analysis. For comparisons between independent samples (e.g., an average score for U.S. students 

compared with an average score for students in another 

jurisdiction) or between the U.S. average and the international average,2

 the t statistic was calculated as follows: 

t = (se2

1 + se22)

(p1 – p2)

where p1 and p2 are the estimates to be compared and 

se1 and se2 are their corresponding standard errors.

For all other comparisons, the t statistic was calculated by running the jackknife regression procedure 

available in the International Database (IDB) Analyzer 

software provided by the IEA. Because of the clustered 

nature of the PIRLS sample (students within classrooms 

within schools), seemingly independent samples (e.g., 

boys and girls) may in fact be correlated. To estimate 

the standard error of the difference between groups 

in correlated samples, the jackknife regression calculated the standard error of the difference between the 

groups being compared for each of the replicate PIRLS 

samples.3 The t statistic was calculated by dividing the 

difference between the two estimates being compared 

by the average standard error of the difference between 

the two comparison groups.

Effect Size

Tests of statistical significance are, in part, influenced 

by sample sizes. To provide the reader with an increased 

understanding of the size of the significant difference 

between student populations in the United States, 

effect sizes for selected results are included in the 

report. Effect sizes use standard deviations, rather than 

standard errors, and are therefore not influenced by 

the size of the student population samples.4 Following 

Cohen (1988) and Rosnow and Rosenthal (1996), 

effect size is calculated by finding the difference 

between the means of two groups and dividing that 

result by the pooled standard deviation of the two 

groups. The formula used to compute effect size (d) 

is as follows: 

d = estgrp1 – estgrp2

sdpooled

.

estgrp1 and estgrp2 are the student group estimates being 

compared. sdpooled is the pooled standard deviation of 

the groups being compared. The formula for the pooled 

standard deviation is as follows (Rosnow and Rosenthal 

1996): 

sdpooled = sd2

1 + sd22

2 .

sd1 and sd2 are the standard deviations of the groups 

being compared. 

4

The IDB Analyzer software provided by IEA does not provide the 

variance or standard deviations of estimates. To calculate these 

statistics for effect sizes, the estimates for sex, race/ethnicity, 

school control, and school poverty level were re-run using the AM

statistical software package.

2

Because U.S. students contribute to the international average, 

the two samples are not entirely independent. When dependent 

samples are compared, it is most appropriate to use a different 

t-test formula that takes account of the overlap between the 

two samples. Tests of differences between the U.S. average 

and the international average could not be performed using 

dependent samples t-tests because the international data 

were unavailable during the time in which the U.S. data were 

analyzed. Consequently, the independent samples t statistic 

was used when comparing a jurisdiction average to the international average.

3

See Martin et al. (2007) for details on the tests of statistical 

significance used for correlated samples.
Page intentionally left blank
39

Linda Baker

Professor, Department of Psychology

University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Baltimore, MD

Richard Durán

Professor, Gevirtz Graduate School of Education

University of California, Santa Barbara

Santa Barbara, CA

Douglas Fuchs

Professor, Department of Special Education

Vanderbilt University

Nashville, TN

Ann Kennedy

Coordinator of Project Development and Operations 

PIRLS International Study Center

Boston College

Chestnut Hill, MA

Appendix C: PIRLS Technical Review Panel, 

United States

John Sabatini

Research Scientist

Educational Testing Service

Princeton, NJ

Timothy Shanahan

Professor, College of Education

University of Illinois at Chicago

Chicago, IL

Joanna Williams

Professor, Teachers College

Columbia University

New York, NY
Page intentionally left blank
41

NCES Publications

PIRLS 2006

Krotki, K., and Bland, J. (2007). PIRLS 2006 Nonresponse 

Bias Analysis Report (NCES 2008-019). National Center 

for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, 

U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

PIRLS 2001 

Binkley, M., and Kelly, D.L. (2003). A Comparison of the 

NAEP and PIRLS Fourth-Grade Reading Assessments 

(NCES 2003–10). National Center for Education 

Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 

Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Kapinus, B. (2003). PIRLS-IEA Reading Literacy Framework: 

Comparative Analysis of the 1991 IEA Reading Study 

and the Progress in International Reading Literacy 

Study (NCES 2003-05). National Center for Education 

Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 

Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Ogle, L.T., Sen, A., Pahlke, E., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg, 

D., Roey, S., and Williams, T. (2003). International 

Comparisons in Fourth-Grade Reading Literacy: 

Findings from the Progress in International Reading 

Literacy Study (PIRLS) of 2001 (NCES 2003-073). 

National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of 

Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 

Washington, DC.

Appendix D: PIRLS Publications

Piesse, A., and Rust, K. (2003). 2001 U.S. PIRLS Nonresponse 

Bias Analysis (NCES 2003–21). National Center for 

Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, 

U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

International Publications

PIRLS 2006

Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., and Kennedy, A.M. (2007). 

PIRLS 2006 Technical Report. Chestnut Hill, MA: 

TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch 

School of Education, Boston College. 

Mullis, I.V.S., Kennedy, A.M., Martin, M.O., and Sainsbury, 

M. (2006). PIRLS 2006: Assessment Framework and 

Specifications (2nd ed.). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS 

and PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School 

of Education, Boston College.

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Kennedy, A.M., and Foy, P. 

(2007). PIRLS 2006 International Report: IEA’s Progress 

in International Reading Literacy Study in Primary 

Schools in 40 Countries. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS and 

PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of 

Education, Boston College.

PIRLS 2001

Campbell, J.R., Kelly, D.L., Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., and 

Sainsbury, M. (2001). Framework and Specifications for 

PIRLS Assessment 2001 (2nd ed.). Chestnut Hill, MA: 

TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch 

School of Education, Boston College.
42

The Reading Literacy of U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context

Appendix D: PIRLS Publications

Gonzalez, U.J., and Kennedy, A.M. (2003). PIRLS 2001 

User Guide for the International Database. Chestnut 

Hill, MA: TIMSS and PIRLS International Study 

Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.

Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., Gonzalez, U.J., and 

Kennedy, A.M. (2003). Trends in Children’s Reading 

Literacy Achievement 1991–2001: IEA’s Repeat in 

Nine Countries of the 1991 Reading Literacy Study.

Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS and PIRLS International 

Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston 

College. 

Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., and Kennedy, A.M. (2003). 

PIRLS 2001 Technical Report. Chestnut Hill, MA: 

TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch 

School of Education, Boston College.

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., and Gonzalez, U.J. (2004). 

International Achievement in the Processes of 

Reading Comprehension. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS 

and PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School 

of Education, Boston College. 

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Gonzalez, U.J., and Kennedy, 

A.M. (2003). PIRLS 2001 International Report: IEA’s 

Study of Reading Literacy Achievement in Primary 

Schools in 35 Countries. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS 

and PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School 

of Education, Boston College.

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Kennedy, A.M., and Flaherty, 

C. (2002). PIRLS 2001 Encyclopedia. Chestnut Hill, 

MA: TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center, 

Lynch School of Education, Boston College.

www.ed.gov ies.ed.gov