New Methods for Comparing Literacy Across Populations: Insights from the Measurement of Poverty

Abstract

This paper analyses levels of low literacy across 12 countries by using the International Adult Literacy Survey. We go beyond existing work that only looks at the proportions below certain critical levels of literacy. Using methods developed for the measurement of poverty we calculate measures of literacy that are sensitive to the distribution of literacy within those defined as illiterate. This reveals a different pattern of the extent of literacy problems across countries and within some populations. These measures should be useful to policy makers who need to allocate resources to alleviate low literacy and numeracy. Copyright 2002 Royal Statistical Society.

Multidimensional Poverty and Inequality

“…9 Notice, however, that the nature of selected attributes may condition the definition of measurement tools. As noted in the introduction, we cannot mechanically export the Pigou-Dalton principle of transfers which is central in income inequality analysis to other well-being dimensions, such as health (Bleichrodt and van Doorslaer, 2006), happiness (Kalmijn and Veenhoven, 2005), and literacy (Denny, 2002).…”

The Foster–Greer–Thorbecke (FGT) poverty measures: 25 years later

“…Denny [41], for example, applies the FGT methodology to the domain of education, or more specifically, literacy. He uses test scores from the International Adult Literacy Survey to obtain measures of illiteracy applicable for comparisons across participating countries.…”

International Surveys of Educational Achievement: How Robust are the Findings?

“…The existing data are already used widely by governments and international organizations and by researchers from various disciplines, e.g. the UK Government in Social Exclusion Unit (2001), the human poverty index 2 in United Nations Development Programme (2000) and, from disciplines outside education, Denny (2002) in social statistics, Wößmann (2003) in economics and Esping‐Andersen (2004) in sociology.…”