A First Look at the Literacy of America’s Adults in …A First Look at the Literacy of America’s Adults in the 21st Century 3 Table 1. Overview of the literacy levels Level and

2 Description of Literacy

Levels

2 Assessment Design

2 Defining Literacy

4 Changes in Adult

Literacy

4 Nonliterate in English

5 Profile of Adults With

Below Basic Prose

Literacy

6 Literacy by Gender

8 Literacy by

Race/Ethnicity

10 Literacy by Age

12 Literacy by Language

Spoken Before Starting

School

14 Literacy by Educational

Attainment

16 Literacy by Employment

Status

18 Population and Sample

Size, and Data Collection

Procedures

18 Variable Definitions

19 Sample Assessment

Questions

28 Future NAAL Reports

28 NAAL on the Web

Figure 1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of adults, by

race/ethnicity: 1992 and 2003

Average scoreProse Document Quantitative

1992 2003 Race/ethnicity

White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific

Islander

Total White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific

Islander

Total White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific

Islander

Total0

150

200

250

300

500

276 275287 288

237 243*234

216*

255271* 271 271

281 282

230238* 238

224*

259272 275

283* 288297*

222238* 233 233

268

285

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

Average Prose and Document Literacy Scores Rise forBlacks and Asians But Decrease Among Hispanics

The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) measures the English literacy ofAmerica's adults (people age 16 and older living in households or prisons).The average quantita-tive literacy scores of adults increased 8 points between 1992 and 2003, though average prose anddocument literacy did not differ significantly from 1992 (figure 1).

Among Blacks, average prose literacy scores increased by 6 points and average document literacyscores rose by 8 points between 1992 and 2003 (figure 1).The average prose scores ofAsians/Pacific Islanders increased as well, rising 16 points between 1992 and 2003.The averageprose literacy scores of Hispanics fell 18 points from 1992 to 2003, while average document lit-eracy scores decreased by 14 points.Average prose and document literacy scores among Whitesdid not change significantly. (Differences are discussed in this report only if they were found tobe statistically significant at the .05 level. Standard errors for all tables and figures in this reportare available on the NAAL website.)

* Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in households or prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or men-

tal disabilities (3 percent in 2003 and 4 percent in 1992) are excluded from this figure. In 1992, respondents were allowed to identify only one race. In 2003, respondents were

allowed to identify multiple races. In 2003, 2 percent of respondents identified multiple races and are not included in the White, Black, or Asian/Pacific Islander categories in this

figure. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race.The Asian/Pacific Islander category includes Native Hawaiians.Total includes White, Black,

Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Multiracial/Other. Although not reported separately, American Indians/Native Alaskans are included.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National

Assessment of Adult Literacy.

National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL)

A First Look at the Literacy of

America’s Adults in the 21st CenturyU.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

NCES 2006-470

A First Look at the Literacy of America’s Adults in the 21st Century

Assessment Design

The National Center forEducation Statistics (NCES)asked the National ResearchCouncil’s Board on Testingand Assessment (BOTA) torecommend a set of literacylevels for the 2003 assessment

that would permit compar-isons with results from the1992 assessment.

Drawing on recommendationsfrom BOTA’s Committee onPerformance Levels for Adult

Literacy, NCES has decided toreport the assessment resultsby using four literacy levels.Descriptions of the abilitiesassociated with each level andthe types of tasks that adults ateach level could complete are

presented in table 1 on thefollowing page.The completeBOTA report explaining theirmethodology in setting levelsis available on the Web athttp://books.nap.edu/catalog/11267.html.

Description of Literacy Levels

Defining LiteracyThe assessment defines litera-

cy as “using printed and writ-

ten information to function in

society, to achieve one’s goals,

and to develop one’s knowl-

edge and potential.” Results

are reported on three literacy

scales (see Sample Assessment

Questions section of the

report):

PPrroossee LLiitteerraaccyy

The knowledge and skills

needed to perform prose

tasks (i.e., to search, compre-

hend, and use information

from continuous texts).

DDooccuummeenntt LLiitteerraaccyy


needed to perform document

tasks (i.e., to search, compre-

hend, and use information

from noncontinuous texts in

various formats).

QQuuaannttiittaattiivvee LLiitteerraaccyy


required to perform quantita-

tive tasks (i.e., to identify and

perform computations, either

alone or sequentially, using

numbers embedded in print-

ed materials).

Unlike indirect measures ofliteracy, which rely on self-reports of literacy skills oreducational attainment, theassessment measures literacy byasking respondents to demon-strate that they understand themeaning of information foundin texts they are asked to read.

The literacy tasks in the assess-ment were drawn from actualtexts and documents, whichwere either used in their orig-inal format or reproduced inthe assessment booklets. Eachquestion appeared before thematerials needed to answer it,thus encouraging respondentsto read with purpose.

Respondents could correctlyanswer many assessment ques-tions by skimming the text ordocument for the informa-tion necessary to perform agiven literacy task.All taskswere open-ended.

A total of 152 prose, docu-ment, and quantitative literacytasks were included in the

2003 assessment. Sixty-five ofthe tasks were taken from the1992 survey and 87 weredeveloped for the 2003 assess-ment.Tasks from the 1992survey were included in the2003 assessment to measurechanges in literacy between1992 and 2003.

Asking each respondent tocomplete all the tasks wouldbe too time-consuming, so thetasks were organized into 13unique blocks. Respondentswere asked to complete anassessment booklet thatincluded seven literacy screen-ing tasks (with questions askedin either English or Spanishbut based upon written mate-rials presented in English only)common to all booklets, fol-lowed by three blocks of tasks.

Adults who were unable toanswer a minimum number ofliteracy screening tasks, butwho were able to communi-cate in either English orSpanish, were administered analternative assessment with

questions asked orally in eitherEnglish or Spanish based uponprinted materials presented inEnglish only.Adults who werenot screened into the alterna-tive assessment and completedthe main assessment attemptedapproximately 40 literacy tasks(administered in English only).To compare results between1992 and 2003, the 1992results were rescaled using thecriteria and methods estab-lished for the 2003 assessment.

The assessment also included abackground questionnaire thatwas used to collect data aboutthe relationship between liter-acy and various demographicand background characteris-tics.The background question-naire was administered beforethe assessment and the ques-tions were asked orally ineither English or Spanish.

See Population and SampleSize, and Data CollectionProcedures section of thisreport for more informationabout the assessment.

2


3

Table 1. Overview of the literacy levels

Level and definition Key abilities associated with level Sample tasks typical of level

Below Basic indicates nomore than the most simpleand concrete literacy skills.

Score ranges for BelowBasic:

Prose: 0–209Document: 0–204Quantitative: 0–234

Basic indicates skills nec-essary to perform simpleand everyday literacyactivities.

Score ranges for Basic:Prose: 210–264Document: 205–249Quantitative: 235–289

Intermediate indicatesskills necessary to performmoderately challenging lit-eracy activities.

Score ranges forIntermediate:

Prose: 265–339Document: 250–334Quantitative: 290–349

Proficient indicates skillsnecessary to perform morecomplex and challengingliteracy activities.

Score ranges for Proficient:Prose: 340–500Document: 335–500Quantitative: 350–500

Adults at the Below Basic level range from being nonliterate inEnglish to having the abilities listed below:

■ locating easily identifiable information in short, commonplaceprose texts

■ locating easily identifiable information and following writteninstructions in simple documents (e.g., charts or forms)

■ locating numbers and using them to perform simplequantitative operations (primarily addition) when themathematical information is very concrete and familiar

■ reading and understanding information in short,commonplace prose texts

■ reading and understanding information in simple documents

■ locating easily identifiable quantitative information andusing it to solve simple, one-step problems when thearithmetic operation is specified or easily inferred

■ reading and understanding moderately dense, lesscommonplace prose texts as well as summarizing, makingsimple inferences, determining cause and effect, andrecognizing the author’s purpose

■ locating information in dense, complex documents andmaking simple inferences about the information

■ locating less familiar quantitative information and using it tosolve problems when the arithmetic operation is notspecified or easily inferred

■ reading lengthy, complex, abstract prose texts as well assynthesizing information and making complex inferences

■ integrating, synthesizing, and analyzing multiple pieces ofinformation located in complex documents

■ locating more abstract quantitative information and using itto solve multistep problems when the arithmetic operationsare not easily inferred and the problems are more complex

■ searching a short, simple text to find out what apatient is allowed to drink before a medical test

■ signing a form

■ adding the amounts on a bank deposit slip

■ finding in a pamphlet for prospective jurors anexplanation of how people were selected forthe jury pool

■ using a television guide to find out whatprograms are on at a specific time

■ comparing the ticket prices for two events

■ consulting reference materials to determinewhich foods contain a particular vitamin

■ identifying a specific location on a map

■ calculating the total cost of ordering specificoffice supplies from a catalog

■ comparing viewpoints in two editorials

■ interpreting a table about blood pressure, age,and physical activity

■ computing and comparing the cost per ounceof food items

NOTE: Although the literacy levels share common names with the NAEP levels, they do not correspond to the NAEP levels.

SOURCE: Hauser, R.M, Edley, C.F. Jr., Koenig, J.A., and Elliott, S.W. (Eds.). (2005). Measuring Literacy: Performance Levels for Adults, Interim Report.Washington, DC: National Academies Press; White, S. and Dillow, S. (2005). Key Concepts and Features of

the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006-471). U.S. Department of Education.Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.


The percentage of adults(people age 16 and older liv-ing in households or prisons)with Below Basic documentliteracy decreased 2 percent-age points between 1992 and2003 and the percentage ofadults with Below Basic quan-titative literacy decreased by 4percentage points (figure 2).The percentage of adults withBasic literacy did not changesignificantly between 1992

and 2003 on any of the threescales.The percentage ofadults with Intermediate docu-ment literacy increased by 4 percentage points and thepercentage of adults withIntermediate quantitative litera-cy increased by 3 percentagepoints.The percentage ofadults with Proficient proseand document literacydecreased 2 percentage pointsbetween 1992 and 2003.

Changes in Adult Literacy

Figure 2. Percentage of adults in each literacy level: 1992

and 2003

14

14

14

12*

26

22*

29 44 13*

22 49 15

22 53* 13*

32 30 13

33 33* 13

28 43 15

Literacy scaleand year

Prose

Document

Quantitative

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 100908070 60 50 40 30 20 10

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

Nonliterate in English

4

An additional component ofthe adult population (definedas people age 16 and older liv-ing in households or prisons)is not shown in figure 2. Fieldinterviewers determined that 2percent of adults in 2003 and3 percent in 1992 could notbe tested because they spoke alanguage other than English orSpanish and were unable tocommunicate in English orSpanish.These adults areincluded in the populationthat is the basis for the per-centages in figure 3, but not inthe population of adults that isthe basis for figure 2 and theother figures in this report,because there is little or nobackground data on adultswho could not be tested.

In 2003, about 3 percent ofadults took an alternativeassessment because they were

unable to complete a mini-mum number of simple liter-acy screening questions.Theseadults also performed in theBelow Basic category in figure2. Questions on the alterna-tive assessment were asked ineither English or Spanish, butall written materials were inEnglish only.While some ofthese individuals were able toidentify letters, numbers, andsimple words and phrases,most were unable to read andunderstand connected text inEnglish.These adults are alsononliterate in English.

For 2003, these two groups ofadults who were nonliteratein English—the 2 percentwho could not be testedbecause they could not com-municate in English orSpanish and the 3 percentwho received the alternative

assessment—account for 5 percent of the population(11 million). For 1992, thecorresponding percentagecould not be estimated.Anunknown proportion of theBelow Basic population in thatyear would have required suchan alternative assessment, butit was not available then. In

addition to the adults whocould not be tested because ofa language difficulty (3 per-cent in 1992 and 2 percent in2003), other adults could notbe tested because of a cogni-tive or mental disability thatprecluded conducting theinterview (1 percent in 1992and 1 percent in 2003).

Figure 3. Percentage of adults in selected prose literacy

levels, including adults who could not be tested:

1992 and 2003

Below Basic Basic and aboveCould not be tested due to language

Year


2003

1992 3 13 83

2 13 84

Alternative assessment: 3

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in households or prisons. Results do not add to 100

percent; adults who could not be interviewed because of cognitive or mental disabilities are not included in the totals.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992

National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.


NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living

in households or prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental dis-

abilities (3 percent in 2003 and 4 percent in 1992) are excluded from this figure.




In 2003, 14 percent ofAmerican adults (defined aspeople age 16 and older liv-ing in households or prisons)had Below Basic prose litera-cy (figure 2). Examining thecharacteristics of these adultsprovides a profile of theadults with the lowest proseliteracy performance.

Hispanics, who represent 12percent of the NAAL popula-tion, accounted for 39 per-cent of the adults with BelowBasic prose literacy (table 2).Twenty percent of adults withBelow Basic prose literacywere Black. In contrast, while70 percent of the NAALpopulation is White, 37 per-cent of adults with BelowBasic prose literacy wereWhite.

Adults age 65 or older repre-sent 15 percent of the NAALpopulation but 26 percent ofadults in the lowest prose lit-eracy level (table 2).Although35 percent of adults withBelow Basic prose literacyspoke Spanish or Spanish and

another non-English languagebefore starting school, theseindividuals account for 8 per-cent of the population.

Adults without a high schooldegree or GED represent 15percent of the total NAALpopulation but 55 percent ofthe adults in the lowest proseliteracy level (table 2). Fifty-two percent of adults in thetotal NAAL population com-pleted at least some educa-tion beyond high school,compared to 14 percent ofadults with Below Basic proseliteracy.

Forty-six percent of adultswith Below Basic prose literacyhad one or more disabilities,compared to 30 percent ofadults in the NAAL popula-tion (table 2).The percentageof adults with multiple dis-abilities in the Below Basicprose level (21 percent) wassignificantly higher than thepercentage of adults withmultiple disabilities in theNAAL population (9 per-cent).

Table 2. Percentage of adults with selected characteristics in

the Below Basic prose literacy level and in the total

NAAL population: 2003

Total NAALCharacteristic Below Basic population

Race/ethnicity

White 37 70Black 20 12Hispanic 39 12Asian/Pacific Islander 4 4

Gender

Male 46 49Female 54 51

Age

16–18 5 619–24 9 1125–39 25 2840–49 16 2050–64 20 2165+ 26 15

Language spoken before starting school

English only 52 81English and Spanish 2 2English and other language 2 4Spanish 35 8Other language 9 5

Educational attainment

Less than/some high school 55 15GED/high school equivalency 4 5High school graduate 23 26Vocational/trade/business school 4 6Some college 4 11Associate’s/2-year degree 3 12College graduate 2 12Graduate studies/degree 1 11

Disability status

Vision problem only 7 5Hearing problem only 4 5Learning disability only 4 3Other disability only 10 8Multiple disabilities 21 9No disabilities 54 70

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older liv-

ing in households or prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental

disabilities (3 percent in 2003 and 4 percent in 1992) are excluded from this table. In 1992, respondents were

allowed to identify only one race. In 2003, respondents were allowed to identify multiple races. In 2003, 2 percent of

respondents identified multiple races and are not included in the White, Black, or Asian/Pacific Islander categories in

this table. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race.The Asian/Pacific Islander catego-

ry includes Native Hawaiians.The English and Spanish category includes adults who spoke only English and

Spanish, as well as adults who spoke English, Spanish, and another non-English language.The Spanish category

includes adults who spoke only Spanish, as well as adults who spoke Spanish and another non-English language.

The Other language category includes only adults who did not speak English or Spanish.


National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Profile of Adults With Below Basic Prose Literacy

5

In 2003, average prose literacyand average document litera-cy were higher for womenthan for men, while averagequantitative literacy was high-er for men than for women(figure 4).

Between 1992 and 2003, theaverage prose score forwomen remained at 277,while the average prose scorefor men decreased by 4points (figure 4). On the doc-ument literacy scale, womengained 4 points between

1992 and 2003, while theaverage score for mendropped by 5 points.

In 2003, the average quanti-tative literacy score forwomen increased 10 pointsfrom 1992, while average

quantitative literacy for menwas not significantly differentfrom 1992 (figure 4).

The distribution of men andwomen across the literacy lev-els also changed between 1992and 2003 (figures 5, 6, and 7).

Literacy by Gender


Figure 4. Average prose, document, and quantitative

literacy scores of adults, by gender: 1992 and 2003

276 272* 277 277 274 269* 268 272*283 286

269279*

Average score

0

150

200

250

300

500 Prose Document Quantitative

1992 2003Gender

MenMen WomenWomen WomenMen


NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in households or prisons. Adults who could not

be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 2003 and 4 percent in 1992)

are excluded from this figure.



6


7

Figure 7. Percentage of adults in each quantitative literacy

level, by gender: 1992 and 2003

24

21*

22*

29 31 17

31* 33* 16

28 34 28 9

35 32* 11*


2003

1992

2003

1992

Gender and year

Men

Women








Figure 5. Percentage of adults in each prose literacy level, by

gender: 1992 and 2003

15

15

13

12

27 42 16

29 43 13*

29 44 14

29 46 14


2003

1992

2003

1992

Gender and year

Men

Women








Figure 6. Percentage of adults in each document literacy

level, by gender: 1992 and 2003

14

14

14

11*

21 49 17

23* 51* 13*

23 50 13

22 54* 13


2003

1992

2003

1992

Gender and year

Men

Women





disabilities (3 percent in 2003 and 4 percent in 1992) are excluded from this figure.



On the quantitative scale, forexample, the percentage ofmen and women with BelowBasic literacy decreasedbetween 1992 and 2003 (fig-ure 7). For men, the percent-age with Below Basic quantita-tive literacy declined by 3 per-

centage points, while the per-centage of women with BelowBasic quantitative literacy fellby 6 percentage points.

The percentage of womenwith Below Basic documentliteracy also decreased, from

14 percent in 1992 to 11percent in 2003 (figure 6).

Despite the overall gain madeby women in quantitative lit-eracy, in 2003, the percentageof men with Proficient quanti-tative literacy was 5 percent-

age points higher than thepercentage of women (figure7). For the prose and docu-ment scales, there were nosignificant differences betweenthe percentage of men andwomen with Proficient literacy(figures 5 and 6).

The percentage of Whites,Blacks, and Asians/Pacific

Islanders with Below Basic lit-eracy decreased between1992 and 2003 on the prose,document, and quantitativescales (figures 8, 9, and 10).Among Hispanics, the per-centage with Below Basic

prose literacy increased 9percentage points between1992 and 2003, while thepercentage with Below Basicdocument literacy increased 8percentage points (figures 8and 9).The percentage of

Hispanics with Below Basicquantitative literacy was 50percent in both 1992 and2003 (figure 10).

Although the percentage ofHispanics with Below Basic

Literacy by Race/Ethnicity


Figure 8. Percentage of adults in each prose literacy level,

by race/ethnicity: 1992 and 2003

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

41 27 2

43 31* 2

30* 23* 4*

9

7*

30

24*

35

44*

25

14*

25 48 18

25 51* 17

33 28 5

30 36 9

32 42 12


White

Black

Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander


Race/ethnicityand year




disabilities (3 percent in 2003 and 4 percent in 1992) are excluded from this figure. In 1992, respondents were

allowed to identify only one race. In 2003, respondents were allowed to identify multiple races. In 2003, 2 percent

of respondents identified multiple races and are not included in the White, Black, or Asian/Pacific Islander cate-

gories in this figure. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race.The Asian/Pacific

Islander category includes Native Hawaiians.



NAAL Population,

1992 and 2003

Table 3. Percentage of

adults, by

race/ethnicity:

1992 and 2003

Race/ethnicity 1992 2003White 77 70*

Black 11 12

Hispanic 8 12*

Asian/Pacific Islander 2 4*


NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of

rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of

age and older. Adults who could not be inter-

viewed due to language spoken or cognitive or

mental disabilities (3 percent in 2003 and 4 per-

cent in 1992) are excluded from this table. In 1992,

respondents were allowed to identify only one

race. In 2003, respondents were allowed to identify

multiple races. In 2003, 2 percent of respondents

identified multiple races and are not included in

the White, Black, or Asian/Pacific Islander cate-

gories in this table. All adults of Hispanic origin are

classified as Hispanic, regardless of race.The

Asian/Pacific Islander category includes Native

Hawaiians.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of

Education Sciences, National Center for Education

Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and

2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

The percentage of Whitesdecreased between 1992and 2003, while the per-centage of Hispanics andAsians/Pacific Islandersincreased.The percentageof Hispanics rose 4 per-centage points and thepercentage of Asians/Pacific Islanders increased2 percentage points.Thepercentage of Blacks didnot differ significantlybetween 1992 and 2003.

8

document literacy increasedbetween 1992 and 2003, thepercentage of Hispanics withBelow Basic document litera-cy was lower than the per-centage of Hispanics withBelow Basic prose or quanti-

tative literacy (figures 8, 9,and 10).

For prose, document, andquantitative literacy in 2003,the percentage of Whites andAsians/Pacific Islanders with

Proficient literacy was signifi-cantly higher than the percentage of Blacks andHispanics (figures 8, 9, and10).A higher percentage ofWhites than Asians/PacificIslanders had Proficient prose

literacy (figure 8). On allthree scales, Hispanics weremore likely than Blacks tohave Proficient literacy (figures8, 9, and 10).


9


level, by race/ethnicity: 1992 and 2003

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

19 53 18

19 58* 15*

33 34 2

35 40* 2

29 38 5

26* 33* 5

23 48 10

22 54 13

10

8*

31

24*

28

36*

19

11*

White

Black

Hispanic















Figure 10. Percentage of adults in each quantitative literacy

level, by race/ethnicity: 1992 and 2003

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

32 34 15

32 39* 17

30 12 1

36* 15* 2

31 16 3

29 17 4

29 28 12

34 35 12

19

13*

57

47*

50

50

31

19*

White

Black

Hispanic















The average prose, document,and quantitative literacy ofadults in the oldest age groups(50 to 64 and 65 and older)increased between 1992 and2003 (figure 11). For the same

groups of adults, the percent-age with Below Basic literacyfell across the literacy scales(figures 12 and 13; results forthe quantitative scale are notshown here but are availableon the NAAL website).

Although the average literacyof adults age 65 and olderincreased between 1992 and2003, adults in this age grouphad the lowest average litera-cy in 2003 and accounted forthe largest percentage ofadults with Below Basic prose,

document, and quantitativeliteracy in 2003 (figures 11,12, and 13; quantitative levelsnot shown).Among adultsage 65 and older, 23 percenthad Below Basic prose literacy,27 percent had Below Basicdocument literacy, and

Literacy by Age


Figure 11. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of adults, by age:

1992 and 2003

Average scoreProse Document Quantitative

0

150

200

250

300

500

Age

16–18 19–24 25–39 40–49 50–64 65+16–18 19–24 25–39 40–49 50–64 65+ 16–18 19–24 25–39 40–49 50–64 65+

1992 2003

270280

288 293

269

235

267276

283* 282*

278*

248*

270282 286 284

258

221

268277 282 277*

270*

235*264

277286

292

272

235

267279

292*

289

289*

257*



tal disabilities (3 percent in 2003 and 4 percent in 1992) are excluded from this figure.



NAAL Population,

1992 and 2003


adults, by age

groups: 1992 and

2003

Age 1992 200316–18 6 6

19–24 13 11*

25–39 33 28*

40–49 17 20*

50–64 16 21*

65+ 15 15




age and older living in households or prisons.

Adults who could not be interviewed due to lan-

guage spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3

percent in 2003 and 4 percent in 1992) are exclud-

ed from this table.





The aging of America’sadults is reflected in theincrease in the percentageof adults between the agesof 40 and 49 and betweenthe ages of 50 and 64.While the percentage ofadults in these age groupsrose between 1992 and2003, the percentage ofadults between the ages of19 and 24 and between 25and 39 decreased.

10

34 percent had Below Basicquantitative literacy.

Average prose literacy scoresfor adults in the 25 to 39 and40 to 49 age groups fell from1992 to 2003 (figure 11).Average document literacy

decreased for adults ages 40to 49, while the averagequantitative literacy of adultsages 25 to 39 increased.Average literacy for adults inthe 16 to 18 and 19 to 24age groups was not signifi-cantly different in 1992 and

2003 across the literacy scales(figure 11).

Among adults ages 50 to 64,the percentage with Proficientprose, document, and quanti-tative literacy increasedbetween 1992 and 2003

(figures 12 and 13; quantita-tive data not shown).Thepercentage of adults age 65and older with Proficient liter-acy did not change on any ofthe three scales between 1992and 2003.


11


by age: 1992 and 2003

1011

10

11

1012*

911

1613*

3323*

35 49 637 48 5

29 49 13

29 48 12

24 46 2025 45 18

23 45 2327* 47 15*

31 43 1127* 44 15*

37 27 338 34* 4

20031992

16–18

20031992

19–24

20031992

25–39

20031992

40–49

20031992

50–64

20031992

65+


Age and year









level, by age: 1992 and 2003

1011

79

98

1010

1712*

3827*

24 57 1024 56 9

19 58 1520 58 13

18 53 2119 56* 17*

18 52 2020* 54 15*

27 48 923* 54* 12*

31 29 233 38* 3

20031992

16–18

2003199219–24

20031992

25–39

20031992

40–49

20031992

50–64

20031992

65+


Age and year









Scores for adults who spokeSpanish or Spanish and anoth-er non-English languagebefore starting school dropped17 points from 1992 to 2003for prose and document liter-acy but did not change signif-icantly for quantitative literacy(figure 14).The average prose

and document literacy ofadults who spoke Englishbefore starting school (Englishonly, English and Spanish,English and other language)did not change significantlybetween 1992 and 2003,although their average quanti-tative literacy increased.

Fewer adults who spokeEnglish only or English anda non-Spanish languagebefore starting school hadBelow Basic prose, document,and quantitative literacy in2003 than in 1992 (figures15 and 16; results for thequantitative scale are not


language spoken before starting school: 1992 and 2003

270*

Average score

0

150

200

250

300

500

282 283

255262

273 278

205

188*

239249

275 276

253 259 260268

216

199*

241257*

280289*

247261*

271

289*

212 211

246

1992 2003

Prose Document Quantitative

Englishonly

Englishand

Spanish

Englishand otherlanguage

Spanish Otherlanguage

Englishonly

Englishand

Spanish



Englishonly

Englishand

Spanish



Language spoken before starting school



tal disabilities (3 percent in 2003 and 4 percent in 1992) are excluded from this figure.The English and Spanish category includes adults who spoke only English and Spanish, as

well as adults who spoke English, Spanish, and another non-English language.The Spanish category includes adults who spoke only Spanish, as well as adults who spoke

Spanish and another non-English language.The Other language category includes only adults who did not speak English or Spanish.



Literacy by Language Spoken Before Starting School

NAAL Population,

1992 and 2003


adults, by

language spoken

before starting

school: 1992 and

2003

Language spoken before starting school 1992 2003English only 86 81*

English and Spanish 2 2

English and other language 3 4

Spanish 5 8*

Other language 4 5








ed from this table. The English and Spanish catego-

ry includes adults who spoke only English and

Spanish, as well as adults who spoke English,

Spanish, and another non-English language.The

Spanish category includes adults who spoke only

Spanish, as well as adults who spoke Spanish and

another non-English language.The Other language

category includes only adults who did not speak

English or Spanish.





The language backgroundof America’s adultschanged between 1992and 2003.The percentageof adults who spokeEnglish before startingschool decreased, while thepercentage of adults whospoke Spanish or Spanishand another non-Englishlanguage before startingschool increased.

12



by language spoken before starting school:

1992 and 2003

27 46 1611

9* 27 49* 15

19

14

15

7*

52

61*

32

26

38 39 4

38 42 6

30 43 13

33 51* 9

30 16 2

25* 13* 1*

35 29 5

33 34 7

2003

1992English only

2003

1992English and Spanish

2003

1992English and other

language

2003

1992Spanish

2003

1992Other language

Language spokenbefore starting school

and year






disabilities (3 percent in 2003 and 4 percent in 1992) are excluded from this figure.The English and Spanish catego-

ry includes adults who spoke only English and Spanish, as well as adults who spoke English, Spanish, and another

non-English language.The Spanish category includes adults who spoke only Spanish, as well as adults who spoke

Spanish and another non-English language.The Other language category includes only adults who did not speak

English or Spanish.




level, by language spoken before starting

school: 1992 and 2003

2003

1992English only

2003

1992English and Spanish

2003

1992English and other

language

2003

1992Spanish

2003

1992Other language

12

9*

18

12

19

10*

41

49*

29

20*

Language spokenbefore starting school

and year

21 51 16

21 56* 13*

30 45 7

29 54*

25 57* 8

30 27 2

25* 23 3

26 39 7

24 46* 10*

24 46 11

5






disabilities (3 percent in 2003 and 4 percent in 1992) are excluded from this figure.The English and Spanish catego-

ry includes adults who spoke only English and Spanish, as well as adults who spoke English, Spanish, and another

non-English language.The Spanish category includes adults who spoke only Spanish, as well as adults who spoke

Spanish and another non-English language.The Other language category includes only adults who did not speak

English or Spanish.



shown here but are availableon the NAAL website).Among adults who spokeSpanish or Spanish andanother non-English lan-guage before starting school,the percentage with BelowBasic prose and document lit-eracy increased between

1992 and 2003 (figures 15and 16).

Average document literacy in2003 was highest for theEnglish-language-only group(figure 14). Prose and quanti-tative literacy did not differsignificantly between the

English-language-only andthe English and other lan-guage groups.

In 2003, among adults whospoke Spanish or Spanish andanother non-English languagebefore starting school, 61 per-cent had Below Basic prose lit-

eracy, 49 percent had BelowBasic document literacy, and62 percent had Below Basicquantitative literacy (figures15 and 16; quantitative datanot shown).

13

Average prose literacydecreased for all levels of edu-cational attainment between1992 and 2003, with the

exception of adults who werestill in high school or com-pleted a GED (table 7).Average document literacyalso decreased among adultswho completed educationabove a vocational, trade, orbusiness school. Differences indocument literacy in 1992and 2003 were not significant

for adults with educationalattainment less than somecollege.There were no signif-icant differences in averagequantitative literacy between1992 and 2003 for any edu-cational attainment level.

In 2003, literacy was lowestacross the three scales for

adults who did not completehigh school; these adults alsoaccounted for the largestgroup with Below Basic prose,document, and quantitative lit-eracy (tables 7 and 8). On thequantitative scale, for example,over 60 percent of adultswithout a high school degreehad Below Basic literacy.

Literacy by Educational Attainment


NAAL Population,

1992 and 2003


adults, by

educational

attainment: 1992

and 2003

Educational attainment 1992 2003Still in high school 4 3*

Less than/some high school 21 15*

GED/high school equivalency 4 5*

High school graduate 27 26*

Vocational/trade/business school 5 6

Some college 9 11*

Associate’s/2-year degree 11 12*

College graduate 10 12*

Graduate studies/degree 9 11*








ed from this table.





The educational attain-ment of America’s adultsincreased between 1992and 2003.The percentageof adults with less than ahigh school degree orGED/Equivalencydecreased by 6 percentagepoints, while more adultscompleted an associate’sdegree or more education.

14

Table 7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores

of adults, by educational attainment: 1992 and 2003

Literacy scale and educational attainment 1992 2003Prose

Still in high school 268 262Less than/some high school 216 207*GED/high school equivalency 265 260High school graduate 268 262*Vocational/trade/business school 278 268*Some college 292 287*Associate’s/2-year degree 306 298*College graduate 325 314*Graduate studies/degree 340 327*

Document

Still in high school 270 265Less than/some high school 211 208GED/high school equivalency 259 257High school graduate 261 258Vocational/trade/business school 273 267Some college 288 280*Associate’s/2-year degree 301 291*College graduate 317 303*Graduate studies/degree 328 311*

Quantitative

Still in high school 263 261Less than/some high school 209 211GED/high school equivalency 265 265High school graduate 267 269Vocational/trade/business school 280 279Some college 295 294Associate’s/2-year degree 305 305College graduate 324 323Graduate studies/degree 336 332


NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in households or prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed

due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 2003 and 4 percent in 1992) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National

Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

In 2003, prose, document, andquantitative literacy rose withsuccessive levels of educationalattainment beginning withthe completion of high school(table 7).Average prose, docu-ment, and quantitative literacyfor adults who completed aGED was not significantlydifferent from that of adults

who stopped their educationafter graduating high school.

The declining performance ofadults with higher education-al attainment was reflected inthe decrease between 1992and 2003 in the percentage ofadults with postsecondarydegrees with Proficient prose

and document literacy (table8). On the prose scale, thepercentage of college gradu-ates with Proficient literacydecreased from 40 percent in1992 to 31 percent in 2003.For adults who took graduateclasses or completed a gradu-ate degree, the percentagewith Proficient prose literacy

fell 10 percentage pointsbetween 1992 and 2003.

The distribution of adultsacross the four literacy levelson the quantitative scale didnot change significantlybetween 1992 and 2003within any of the educationalattainment categories.


Table 8. Percentage of adults in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by

educational attainment: 1992 and 2003

Literacy scale and educational attainment 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003Prose

Still in high school 11 14 36 37 47 45 6 4Less than/some high school 45 50* 38 33* 17 16 1 1GED/high school equivalency 9 10 42 45 46 43 3 3High school graduate 11 13 37 39 48 44* 5 4Vocational/trade/business school 9 10 29 36* 53 49 9 5*Some college 4 5 23 25 59 59 14 11Associate’s/2-year degree 2 4* 16 20* 58 56 23 19College graduate 2 3 10 14* 49 53 40 31*Graduate studies/degree 1 1 6 10* 43 48 51 41*

Document

Still in high school 10 13 24 24 57 54 9 9Less than/some high school 44 45 32 29* 23 25 1 2GED/high school equivalency 9 13 31 30 58 53 3 4High school graduate 12 13 28 29 54 52 6 5Vocational/trade/business school 8 9 22 26 60 59 10 7Some college 4 5 15 19* 67 65 14 10Associate’s/2-year degree 3 3 12 15 60 66* 25 16*College graduate 2 2 9 11 52 62* 37 25*Graduate studies/degree 1 1 5 9* 48 59* 45 31*

Quantitative

Still in high school 31 31 37 38 27 25 6 5Less than/some high school 65 64 25 25 9 10 1 1GED/high school equivalency 25 26 46 43 26 28 3 3High school graduate 26 24 41 42 29 29 5 5Vocational/trade/business school 18 18 39 41 35 35 8 6Some college 11 10 34 36 42 43 13 11Associate’s/2-year degree 8 7 29 30 45 45 18 18College graduate 5 4 21 22 44 43 31 31Graduate studies/degree 2 3 15 18 43 43 39 36


NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in households or prisons. Adults who could not be inter-

viewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 2003 and 4 percent in 1992) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment

of Adult Literacy.

15

BasicBelow Basic Intermediate Proficient

The ability to complete dif-ferent literacy tasks may influ-ence employability, so it isuseful to look at the distribu-tion of adults by literacy lev-els across the four categoriesof employment.Among adultswith Below Basic prose litera-cy, 51 percent were not in thelabor force in 2003, while 35

percent were employed fulltime (figure 17; results for thedocument and quantitativescales are not shown here butare available on the NAALwebsite).

The percentage of adultswith Below Basic prose litera-cy who were employed full

time increased 6 percentagepoints between 1992 and2003, and the percentagewith Below Basic documentliteracy who were employedfull time increased 5 percent-age points (figure 17; docu-ment and quantitative resultsnot shown). For adults withBasic prose literacy, 38 per-

cent were not in the laborforce and 6 percent wereunemployed.

Sixty-four percent of adultswith Proficient prose literacyand 54 percent of adults withIntermediate prose literacywere employed full time (figure 17). Eighteen percent

Literacy by Employment Status


Figure 17. Percentage of adults in each employment

category, by prose literacy level: 1992 and 2003

57

6

29

8

51*

510

35*

40

612

42

38

612

44

26

5

15

54

27

5

14

54

173

14

66

183

14

64

Literacy level and year

20031992

Below Basic

20031992

Basic

20031992

Intermediate

20031992

Proficient

Percent not employed

Percent employed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Not in labor forceUnemployedPart timeFull time


NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.Adults are defined as people 16 years of age or older living

in households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3

percent in 2003 and 4 percent in 1992) are excluded from this figure.



NAAL Population,

1992 and 2003


adults, by

employment

status: 1992 and

2003

Employment status 1992 2003Full time 49 50

Part time 13 13

Unemployed 5 5

Not in labor force 33 32



age or older living in households. Adults who could

not be interviewed due to language spoken or cog-

nitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 2003 and

4 percent in 1992) are excluded from this table.





The employment status ofAmerica’s adults did notchange significantlybetween 1992 and 2003.Over 60 percent of alladults were employedeither full or part time.

16

17


employment status: 1992 and 2003

Average score

0

150

200

250

300

500

290 285* 285 281

263 269

252 255

286 281* 279 277261 265

244 250*

292 296*281 287*

261270

247261*

Prose Document Quantitative

Full time Part time Unemployed Not in labor force



1992 2003 Employment status


NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age or older living in households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabili-

ties (3 percent in 2003 and 4 percent in 1992) are excluded from this figure.



of adults with Proficient proseliteracy and 27 percent ofadults with Intermediate proseliteracy were not in the laborforce; 3 percent of adults withProficient prose literacy and 5percent of adults withIntermediate prose literacywere unemployed.

Among adults employed fulltime, average prose and docu-ment literacy scores decreasedby 5 points between 1992and 2003, while averagequantitative scores rose by 4 points (figure 18).Averagequantitative literacy alsoincreased between 1992 and2003 for adults employed part

time and those not in thelabor force.

In 2003, average prose anddocument literacy was high-est among adults employedfull or part time (the differ-ences between these groupswere not statistically signifi-cant), and average quantita-

tive literacy was highest foradults employed full time(figure 18). Literacy was low-est across the three scales foradults who were not in thelabor force.



18

The 2003 assessment wasadministered to a nationallyrepresentative sample of19,714 adults ages 16 andolder residing in householdsor prisons.

A smaller number of respon-dents (1,173) were selectedfor the prison sample andwere interviewed in the facil-ities where they were incar-cerated. Sampled adults resid-ing in households, but tem-porarily in jail—where themedian stay is about twoweeks—would have beeninterviewed at some othertime during the ten monthperiod of data collection.

The household sample is rep-resentative of the 221,020,000adults in households, whilethe prison sample is represen-tative of the 1,380,000 adults

in prisons in 2003.

Data collection for thehousehold sample was con-ducted between May 2003and February 2004 and forthe prison sample betweenMarch 2004 and July 2004.The household and prisonsamples were combined tocreate a national sample rep-resentative of the 222,400,000American adults in house-holds or prisons.

Administration procedures forthe 2003 assessment werechanged to provide moreaccurate data about Englishliteracy levels of adults. Onechange was designed toincrease the number ofSpanish speaking adults whocould participate in the study.In 1992, the easy literacy tasksat the beginning of the assess-

ment were presented inEnglish only. In 2003, thecorresponding tasks were pre-sented in either English orSpanish, although the materi-als to be read were presentedonly in English.As a result,fewer adults had to beexcluded due to the languageof the interview.

A second change wasdesigned to make the assess-ment more like the demandsof everyday life. In 1992,respondents were not allowedto use a calculator for mostquantitative literacy questions.In 2003, respondents hadaccess to a calculator.Allowing respondents to usecalculators is consistent withthe assessment's functionaldefinition of literacy. Both ofthese changes require somecaution in interpreting the

changes in literacy levels from1992 to 2003, but result inthe ability of the 2003 assess-ment to provide more accu-rate data about the Englishliteracy levels of adults.

The final household sampleresponse rate was 62 percentand the final prison sampleresponse rate was 88 percent.NCES statistical standardsrequire a nonresponse biasanalysis when the unitresponse rate for a sample isless than 85 percent.The nonresponse bias analysis ofthe household sample revealeddifferences in the backgroundcharacteristics of respondentswho participated in the assess-ment compared to those whorefused. Detailed informationabout the nonresponse biasanalysis is available on theNAAL website.

A nonresponse bias adjust-ment was performed toreduce the bias due torespondent refusal.Theadjustment corrected for theinitial nonresponse bias,resulting in negligible bias forthe household sample.Theadjustment procedures arediscussed in detail in theforthcoming 2003 NAALTechnical Report.The analy-ses presented in this reportare based on data from thecorrected household sampleand the prison sample.

Population and Sample Size, and Data Collection Procedures

Definitions of all population

groups presented in this report

are available on the NAAL web-

site. Literacy results for adults

who indicated they were

American Indian/Alaska Native

or Multiracial/Other are not

reported separately but are

included in the total population

literacy estimates.

Comparisons between 1992 and

2003 for multiracial adults are not

possible because respondents

were allowed to identify only one

race in 1992. In 2003, about 2 per-

cent of respondents identified

multiple races. Due to small sam-

ple sizes, the Multiracial and

Other categories were combined.

Results for Multiracial/Other and

American Indian/Alaska Native

adults, as well as results by

Hispanic origin, will be included

in future NAAL reports.

All respondents were asked to

report their birth dates, and this

information was used to calcu-

late their age. Age groups

reported are 16 to 18, 19 to 24,

25 to 39, 40 to 49, 50 to 64, and

65 and older. Age groups were

selected to correspond to the

key life stages of many adults

(though not all adults enter the

stages at the ages specified):

■ 16 to 18: Completion of

secondary education

■ 19 to 24: College or job

training

■ 25 to 39: Early career

■ 40 to 49: Mid career

■ 50 to 64: Late career

■ 65 and older: Retirement

Variable Definitions

Documents

A First Look at the Literacy of America’s Adults in …A First Look at the Literacy of America’s Adults in the 21st Century 3 Table 1. Overview of the literacy levels Level and