The International Adult Literacy Survey: How Well Does It Represent the Literacy Abilities of Adults?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the mid-1990s nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) conducted the first International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS). The IALS used two different methods for assessing adult literacy. One method used performance scales to measure prose, document, and quantitative literacy. The second method measured perceived abilities by having adults rate the extent to which their literacy and numeracy skills met their work and daily life requirements for these skills. This paper reviews evidence that challenges the validity of the IALS standardized performance scales, including the construct validity of the measurement scales (the question of just what it is that the IALS scales measure), the standards validity (the question of how good is good enough to be considered competent at whatever the scales measure), and the use validity (the extent to which the findings are useful for various purposes and do not produce social harm). The author concludes that in future assessments more attention should be given to the use of self-perceptions of skills so those who believe they are in need of additional literacy development can be identified and provided with information about educational opportunities. Résumé Au milieu des années '90, les pays membres de l'Organisation de coopération et de développement économique ont mené, selon deux méthodes distinctes, une première enquête internationale sur le niveau d'alphabétisation des adultes. L'une des méthodes choisies a utilisé des échelles de performance pour évaluer de manière quantitative la prose, l'argumentation et l'alphabétisation. Le seconde méthode a mesuré les habiletés perçues en demandant aux adultes eux-mêmes d'évaluer à quel point, chaque jour, ils étaient confrontés à leur analphabétisme ainsi qu'à leurs difficultés avec les nombres. Cet article remet en question la validité de ces échelles de performance standardisées pour les adultes, de même que la façon dont ces échelles ont été bâties, c'est-à- dire; leur objet de mesure et la justesse des critères utilisés. En d'autres mots, à quelle compétence correspond un niveau donné sur cette échelle et quelle utilisation sera faite de ces mesures ultérieurement et enfin, si ces découvertes seront-elles utiles à d'autres usages et n'entraîneront-elles pas de conséquences négatives ? On y conclut que lors de prochaines évaluations, il faudra faire plus attention à l'utilisation des habiletés perçues par les adultes eux-mêmes de sorte que ceux qui pensent avoir besoin de plus de formation puissent être identifiés et qu'on puisse leur procurer de l'information sur les possibilités de s'instruire qui leur sont offertes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".