The results of the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 2001 (PIRLS) were reported in 2003. In addition to data about the reading achievements of 10-year-olds in 35 countries, the study also collected questionnaire information from children, their teachers, headteachers and parents. One aspect of the data that attracted comment in the media was the fact that, despite high achievement on the reading tests, children in England were reported as having relatively poor attitudes to reading, compared to children in many other countries. A review of the results of selected surveys over the past 30 years suggests that there may be some evidence of attitudes to reading in primary schools becoming less positive. Preliminary analysis of the attitude and achievement data from PIRLS suggests a more complex picture than that presented in the summary index published in 2003.When the results of the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) were published in (Mullis et al., 2003, the media identified two key findings of the study: that 10-year-olds in England had performed well in relation to their peers in most of the other 34 participating countries and that the attitudes to reading held by children in England (and also in Scotland) tended to be poorer than those in most other countries.'Better but bored: The teachers, children and policy-makers of England have done well to raise 10-year-olds' reading achievement . . . But we still have an attitude problem. ' (Ward, 2003) '10-year-olds ''are best and worst'' at reading: England's 10-year-olds are among the top and bottom in the world at reading, an international study reported . . . Despite their high average score, 10-year-olds in England had a poorer attitude towards reading, and read less often for fun, than pupils in other countries.' (Clare, 2003) Concern about children's attitudes to reading in the light of the PIRLS results needs to be put into context: are children in England expressing more negative attitudes to reading than they have in the past or do the PIRLS results reflect long-standing attitudes in this country?In the past, work on children's reading that has not been focused on reading development or competence has tended to divide into two main approaches -

No abstract

No abstract

Hilton (2006) criticises the PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study) tests and the survey conduct, raising questions about the validity of international surveys of reading. Her criticisms fall into four broad areas: cultural validity, methodological issues, construct validity and the survey in England. However, her criticisms are shown to be mistaken. Her claim of forced unidimensionality in the tests is not supported by statistical analyses and her claims of cultural strangeness are contradicted by the involvement of all the countries involved. She is concerned about linguistic diversity but this is actually reflected in the ways countries organise their surveys. Finally, Hilton suggests that the English sample was biased, but fails to recognise the stringent sampling requirements or the monitoring roles of external assessors and the sampling referee. A careful study of the evidence concerning PIRLS shows that it is actually a fair and robust measure of reading attainment in different countries.

The results of the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS 2001) were published in 2003. In addition to data about the reading achievements of 10-year-olds in 35 countries, PIRLS 2001 also collected questionnaire information from children, their teachers, headteachers and parents. The results showed not just how well students can perform in various reading tasks, but also the relationship between reading abilities and other characteristics, including the characteristics of their homes and schools, the students' attitudes to reading, reading enjoyment, selfconfidence, engagement and perceptions of their reading abilities. Surprisingly enough, children in England were reported as having poor attitudes to reading, compared to children in many other countries, despite high achievement on the reading tests. This paper raises some concerns about the interpretation of results from the study, suggesting a more complex picture than that presented in the summary index published in 2003. Our secondary analysis of the attitude and achievement data from PIRLS shows that pupils with low ability levels have misunderstood the questions which tested their attitudes towards reading. The authors point out that caution is needed when making cross-country comparisons to avoid naïve approaches to interpretation.