National Center for Education Statistics - Highlights from the U.S. PIAAC Survey of Incarcerated Adults Their Skills, Work Experience, Education, and Training, 2014

National Center for Education Statistics - Highlights from the U.S. PIAAC Survey of Incarcerated Adults Their Skills, Work Experience, Education, and Training, 2014

• Nov. 3, 2016 • Locations: United States of America • Topics: Work, Education, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

Highlights from the U.S. PIAAC Survey
of Incarcerated Adults: Their Skills, Work
Experience, Education, and Training
Program for the International Assessment
of Adult Competencies: 2014

NCES 2016-040
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Photo Credits:
© Marjorie Kamys Cotera/Bob Daemmrich Photography/Alamy Stock Photo
© mediaphotos/iStockphoto #93456015

Highlights from the U.S. PIAAC Survey of Incarcerated Adults:
Their Skills, Work Experience, Education, and Training
Program for the International Assessment
of Adult Competencies: 2014
November 2016
Bobby D. Rampey
Shelley Keiper
Educational Testing Service
Leyla Mohadjer
Tom Krenzke
Jianzhu Li
Nina Thornton
Jacquie Hogan
Westat
Holly Xie
Stephen Provasnik
Project Officers
National Center for Education Statistics
NCES 2016-040
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

U.S. Department of Education
John B. King, Jr.
Secretary of Education
Institute of Education Sciences
Ruth Neild
Deputy Director for Policy and Research
Delegated Duties of the Director
National Center for Education Statistics
Peggy G. Carr
Acting 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 nations. 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:
U.S. Department of Education
Institute of Education Sciences
National Center for Education Statistics
Potomac Center Plaza (PCP)
550 12th Street SW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20202
November 2016
The NCES Home Page address is http://nces.ed.gov.
The NCES Publications and Products address is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
This publication is only available online. To download, view, and print the report as a PDF file, go to the NCES
Publications and Products address shown above.
This report was prepared in part under Contract No. ED-IES-12-C-0072 with Westat. Mention of trade names,
commercial products, or organizations does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Disclaimer
The research contained in this document was coordinated in part by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
(692-AR14). The contents of this document reflect the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views or policies of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Suggested Citation
Rampey, B.D., Keiper, S., Mohadjer, L., Krenzke, T., Li, J., Thornton, N., and Hogan, J. (2016). Highlights from
the U.S. PIAAC Survey of Incarcerated Adults: Their Skills, Work Experience, Education, and Training: Program for the
International Assessment of Adult Competencies: 2014 (NCES 2016-040). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved [date] from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
Content Contact
Holly Xie, (202) 245-8481, holly.xie@ed.gov
ii

AC K N O W L E D G M E N T S
The authors wish to thank all the individual Americans who participated in the Program for the International
Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) 2014, especially the participating inmates and prison staff. Without
their assistance and cooperation, this study would not be possible. The authors also wish to thank all those who
contributed to the PIAAC design, implementation, and data collection as well as the writing, production, and review
of this report.

iii

CO N T E N T S

Page

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................. v
List of Figures............................................................................................................................................... vii
List of Exhibits ............................................................................................................................................ viii
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1
Work Experience ............................................................................................................................................ 8
Education and Training in Prison ................................................................................................................. 23
Summary.......................................................................................................................................................34
References .................................................................................................................................................... 36
More Information About PIAAC ................................................................................................................. 37
Appendix A: Methodology and Technical Notes ........................................................................................ A-1
Appendix B: PIAAC Scales and Proficiency-Level Descriptions .................................................................. B-1
Appendix C: Members of the PIAAC Prison Expert Group ........................................................................ C-1

L I S T O F TA B L E S
Table Page
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.

2.4.

2.5.
2.6.

2.7.

2.8.
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.

3.4.

Percentage distribution of U.S. adults in selected population groups, by
population group and selected characteristics: 2012 and 2014

Average scores and percentages of adults below Level 2 on the PIAAC
literacy scale, by selected characteristics: 2012 and 2014

Average scores and percentages of adults below Level 2 on the PIAAC
numeracy scale, by selected characteristics: 2012 and 2014

Percentage distribution of incarcerated adults by employment status
prior to current incarceration: 2014

Percentage of incarcerated adults by employment status
prior to current incarceration and selected characteristics: 2014

Average scores and percentages of incarcerated adults below Level 2
on the PIAAC literacy scale, by employment status prior to current
incarceration and selected characteristics: 2014

Average scores and percentages of incarcerated adults below Level 2
on the PIAAC numeracy scale, by employment status prior to current
incarceration and selected characteristics: 2014

Percentage distribution of incarcerated adults by whether they currently have
a prison job and selected characteristics: 2014

Average scores and percentages of incarcerated adults below Level 2
on the PIAAC literacy scale, by whether they currently have a prison job
and selected characteristics: 2014

Average scores and percentages of incarcerated adults below Level 2
on the PIAAC numeracy scale, by whether they currently have a prison job
and selected characteristics: 2014

Percentage distribution of incarcerated adults with prison jobs by the frequency with which
various literacy and numeracy skills are used in their current prison job: 2014

Percentage of incarcerated adults by the highest level of education
completed during their current incarceration: 2014

Percentage of incarcerated adults by highest level of education
completed during current incarceration and selected characteristics: 2014

Average scores and percentages of incarcerated adults below Level 2
on the PIAAC literacy scale, by highest level of education completed during
current incarceration: 2014

Average scores and percentages of incarcerated adults below Level 2
on the PIAAC numeracy scale, by highest level of education completed
during current incarceration: 2014

Table
3.5.
3.6.
3.7.

3.8.
3.9.

3.10.
3.11.

Page
Percentage distribution of incarcerated adults who wanted to enroll in an academic class,
by the degree or certificate program they would like to enroll in: 2014

Percentage distribution of incarcerated adults who wanted to enroll in academic programs
by the main reason they would like to enroll in a degree or certificate program: 2014

Percentage distribution of incarcerated adults who did not want to enroll in academic
programs by the main reason they did not want to enroll in an academic class or
program of study: 2014

Percentage of incarcerated adults who participated in training programs by the main
reasons they wanted to participate in a job skills or job training program: 2014

Percentage distribution of incarcerated adults who did not participate in job training by the
main reason they did not attend a course or program to learn job skills or
job training: 2014

Percentage distribution of incarcerated adults by when they expect to be released
from prison: 2014

Percentage of incarcerated adults who participated in various academic
and vocational programs during their current incarceration, by when they
expect to be released from prison: 2014

A-1.

Weighted response rate for the Prison Study

A-3

A-2.

Percentages and average scores of U.S. adults in selected population
groups on the PIAAC literacy and numeracy scales, by PIAAC assessment
modalities: 2012 and 2014

A-7

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.

2.4.
3.1.
3.2.

3.3.

3.4.

Page
Percentage of incarcerated adults by reported sources of income in year
prior to current incarceration: 2014

Average scores of incarcerated adults on the PIAAC literacy and numeracy scales,
by whether they have any type of information technology (IT) certification: 2014

Average scores of incarcerated adults on the PIAAC literacy and numeracy scales,
by whether they have any type of job-related skill certification other than
information technology (IT): 2014

Average scores of incarcerated adults with prison jobs on the PIAAC literacy and
numeracy scales, by whether they use a computer in their current prison job: 2014

Average scores of incarcerated adults on the PIAAC literacy and numeracy scales,
by whether they want to enroll in an academic class or program of study: 2014

Average scores of incarcerated adults who wanted to enroll in academic programs
on the PIAAC literacy and numeracy scales, by the degree or certificate program
they would like to enroll in: 2014

Average scores of incarcerated adults on the PIAAC literacy and numeracy scales,
by whether they have participated in a job skills or job training program during their
current incarceration: 2014

Average scores of incarcerated adults on the PIAAC literacy and numeracy scales,
by whether they have access to library services: 2014

vii

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit

Page

A-1.

PIAAC Prison Study Yield

A-6

B-1.

Description of PIAAC proficiency levels on the literacy scale

B-3

B-2.

Examples of literacy items

B-4

B-3.

Description of PIAAC proficiency levels on the numeracy scale

B-7

B-4.

Examples of numeracy items

B-8

B-5.

Description of PIAAC proficiency levels on the problem solving
in technology-rich environments scale

B-11

Examples of problem solving in technology-rich environments items

B-12

B-6.

viii

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. PIAAC Survey of Incarcerated Adults was designed to provide
What is PIAAC?
The Program for
the International
Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC)
is a cyclical, large-scale
study of adult skills and
life experiences that was
developed and organized
by the Organization for
Economic Cooperation
and Development
(OECD), and conducted in
the U.S. by the National
Center for Education
Statistics. PIAAC measures
relationships between
individuals’ educational
background, workplace
experiences and skills,
use of information and
communication technology, and cognitive
skills.

information to policymakers, administrators, educators, and researchers
who are developing education and training policies and programs for
incarcerated adults. This report highlights data from the survey’s extensive
background questionnaire and direct assessments of cognitive skills. It
examines the skills of incarcerated adults in relationship to their work
experiences and to their education and training in prison.
This introductory chapter provides a demographic profile along with a snapshot of the
cognitive skills of adults in America’s state, federal, and private prisons.1 For interpretive
context, it compares their profile and skills with those of non-incarcerated adults (the U.S.
household population). The rest of the report focuses on incarcerated adults’ employment
prior to incarceration, experiences with prison jobs, skills certifications, educational
attainment in prison, and participation in academic programs and training classes.
The U.S. PIAAC Survey of Incarcerated Adults follows two earlier studies, conducted by
NCES in the 1990s and early 2000s, which assessed the skills of incarcerated adults in the
United States. Results from the earlier studies are not directly comparable with the results
from the PIAAC Survey of Incarcerated Adults at this time.2 Nonetheless, the current survey is an extension of this earlier work and continues the ongoing analysis and conversation
about the skills and experiences of the U.S. prison population.

How was the PIAAC Survey of Incarcerated Adults conducted?
The PIAAC Survey of Incarcerated Adults was conducted from February through June
2014, and targeted a nationally representative sample of incarcerated adults (age 16 to 74)3
detained in state and federal prisons, and in private prisons housing state and federal

Facilities run by private corporations whose services and beds are contracted by state governments or the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Literacy Behind Prison Walls: Profiles of the Prison Population from the National Adult Literacy Survey (Haigler 1994) and Literacy Behind Bars:
Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy Prison Survey (Greenberg 2007). Results from the 1994 National Adult Literacy
Survey (NALS) and the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) have not yet been rescaled to place them on the same scale as
PIAAC. Once they are rescaled, direct comparisons of the different prison populations measured by NALS, NAAL, and PIAAC will be possible.
3
While the PIAAC target population was 16- to 74-year-olds, the prison sample does not include 16- or 17-year-olds.
2

inmates. In total, there were 98 participating prisons (80 were male-only or coed and 18
were female-only). Female-only prisons were oversampled in order to arrive at 250 to
300 female inmates total. Of the 1,546 sampled inmates, 1,315 completed the prison
background questionnaire (1,048 male and 267 female).
The prison survey was part of a second round of U.S. data collection, known as the 2014 U.S.
PIAAC National Supplement. In addition to the prison population, the national supplement
targeted a population of 3,600 adults from three key U.S. subgroups of interest: unemployed
adults (age 16 to 65), young adults (age 16 to 34), and older adults (age 66 to 74). This augmented the 2012 PIAAC Main Study of 5,000 adults, bringing the combined U.S. household
sample to 8,600 adults between the ages of 16 and 74. The combined U.S. results from the
PIAAC Main Study and the U.S. National Supplement represent the household data that are
used for comparison with the prison results presented at the end of this introduction.
Incarcerated adults were tested with the same assessments as those used for the national administration of PIAAC in households in 2012 and 2014. Inmates also responded to background
questions that were similar to the household questionnaire given to the national sample of
adults, but modified to more closely align with the experiences of the prison population.

What does PIAAC measure?
PIAAC is designed to assess adults over a broad range of abilities, from simple reading to
complex problem-solving skills, and to collect information on individuals’ skill use and background. PIAAC defines four core competency domains of adult cognitive skills that are seen
as key to facilitating the social and economic participation of adults in advanced economies:
literacy, reading components, numeracy, and problem solving in technology-rich environments.
Tasks developed for PIAAC’s four domains are authentic, culturally appropriate, and
drawn from real-life situations that are expected to be important or relevant in different
contexts. Tasks are intended to reflect adults’ daily lives across cultures, even if not every
adult is necessarily familiar with every task. PIAAC is not designed to provide individual
scores, but rather to measure how groups of adults perform on the domains. In order to
be as efficient as possible with participants’ time, each respondent receives only a portion
of the assessment items (see the Data Collection section of Appendix A for more detail).
For a more detailed description of the four domains, see Appendix B. For a list of the experts
in correctional education and policy who provided valuable input on the background questionnaires and the PIAAC assessment in general, see Appendix C.

Literacy
The primary goal of PIAAC’s literacy assessment is to measure everyday literacy, which is
defined by the PIAAC framework as “understanding, evaluating, using and engaging with
written text to participate in society, to achieve one’s goals and to develop one’s knowledge and
potential” (OECD 2012).

Reading components
The primary goal of the PIAAC reading components measure is to provide information
about the literacy skills of adults at the lower end of the literacy spectrum—specifically,
whether they have the foundational skills to develop the higher literacy and numeracy
abilities necessary for functioning in society. The reading components assessment focuses
on core elements of reading: reading vocabulary, sentence comprehension, and basic
passage comprehension. Note that results for this domain are not shown in this report.

Problem solving in technology-rich environments (PS-TRE)
PIAAC represents the first attempt to assess problem solving in technology-rich environments
on a large scale and as a single dimension. PIAAC defines problem solving in technology-rich
environments as “using digital technology, communication tools, and networks to acquire and evaluate information, communicate with others, and perform practical tasks” (OECD 2012).

Skill use and the background questionnaire
In addition to the skills assessment, PIAAC’s background questionnaire surveys adults
about their educational background; work history; their intrapersonal, interpersonal, and
professional skills; and their use of those skills on the job and at home.
For a more detailed description of the domains, see Appendix B.

How are results reported?
PIAAC results are reported in two ways: (1) as scale scores (estimated on a 0–500 scale)
in the three domains of literacy, numeracy, and problem solving in technology-rich
environments,4 and (2) as percentages of adults reaching the proficiency levels established
for each of these domains.
PIAAC reports five proficiency levels for literacy and numeracy (Below level 1, Level 1,
Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4/5) and four levels for problem solving in technology-rich
environments (Below level 1, Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3). The OECD provides detailed
descriptions of the types of skills that can be performed at each level. For example, adults
at Level 1 in literacy can “read relatively short…texts to locate a single piece of information
that is identical to or synonymous with the information given in the question or directive”
and can “enter personal information onto a document” when “[l]ittle, if any, competing

Results from the reading components portion of the assessment are not provided in this report, but can be accessed via the International
Data Explorer at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/ideuspiaac/.

information is present.” However, adults at Level 1 typically are not successful performing
skills at the higher levels (e.g., “compare and contrast or reason about information
requested” or “navigate within digital texts to access and identify information from
various parts of a document,” both of which are Level 2 literacy skills). Appendix B
provides the OECD’s detailed descriptions of these levels along with examples of assessment
items at each level. While this report highlights average scores and the proportions of
incarcerated adults who perform below Level 2, full proficiency-level results are available
on the PIAAC Results Portal at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/results/makeselections.aspx
and the International Data Explorer (IDE) at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/ideuspiaac/.
Readers are cautioned not to draw causal inferences. Many of the variables examined in this
report may be related to one another, but the complex interactions and relationships among
them have not been explored. The information discussed in this report comes from just a few
of the variables that can be examined using these data. These variables were selected to highlight the range of information available from this study. The release of this report is intended
to encourage in-depth analysis of the data using more sophisticated statistical methods.
All statistically significant differences described and/or marked with an * in this report
are at the .05 level. No statistical adjustments to account for multiple comparisons were
used. Differences that are statistically significant are discussed using comparative terms
such as “higher” and “lower.” Differences that are not statistically significant are either not
discussed or referred to as “not measurably different” or “not statistically significant.” In
the latter case, failure to find a difference as statistically significant does not necessarily
mean that there was no difference. It could be that a real difference cannot be detected
by the significance test because of a small sample size or an imprecise measurement in the
sample. If the statistical test is significant, this means that there is convincing evidence
(though no guarantee) of a real difference in the population. However, it is important to
remember that statistically significant results do not necessarily identify those findings
that have policy significance or practical importance. In tables without asterisks, apparent
differences between estimates may not be statistically significant. See Appendix A for
more information about statistical testing.
Results for incarcerated adults on the literacy and numeracy domains are presented in
this highlights report. Only adults who took the PIAAC survey on computer were assessed
on problem solving in technology-rich environments (PS-TRE). Among the U.S. adult
household population, 81 percent of adults took PIAAC on computer; however, among
the U.S. prison population, only 61 percent of adults took PIAAC on computer (see
table A-2 in Appendix A). Due to this difference, comparisons on PS-TRE between
these populations should be made with caution.
This report provides findings for only a few select results, but more PIAAC results and
resources are available from the PIAAC Results Portal at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/
piaac/results/makeselections.aspx and the International Data Explorer (IDE) http://nces.
ed.gov/surveys/piaac/ideuspiaac/.

How does the U.S. incarcerated population compare with the general or “household”
population of U.S. adults?
The demographic characteristics of U.S. incarcerated adults are significantly different in
many respects from those of the general population of adults in U.S. households. Table 1.1
profiles key demographic characteristics of the prison population and marks with an asterisk
those percentages that are significantly different from the household population. For almost
every characteristic, the incarcerated population differed significantly from the household
population.

TABLE 1.1.
Percentage distribution of U.S. adults in selected population groups, by population group
and selected characteristics: 2012 and 2014
Percentage
Characteristic

U.S. Prison

U.S. Household

93*

White

34*

Black

37*

Hispanic

22*

16–24

13*

25–34

35*

35–44

24*

45–54

Gender
Male
Female
Race/ethnicity

Other
Age intervals

55–65

66–74

Yes

93*

Graduate or professional degree

Bachelor's degree

Associate's degree

High school credential

64*

Below high school

30*

First time in prison

†

Previously incarcerated

†

Born in the United States

Highest level of educational attainment

Recidivism

† Not applicable.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from the comparison category, U.S. Household.
1
While the PIAAC target population was 16- to 74-year-olds, the prison sample did not include 16- or 17-year-olds.
NOTE: Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Detail may not sum to totals because of
rounding. U.S. Household data collection occurred in 2012 and 2014, and U.S. Prison data collection occurred in 2014. Apparent differences between
in-prison racial estimates may not be statistically significant.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies
(PIAAC), U.S. National Supplement: Prison Study 2014, U.S. PIAAC 2012/2014.

Table 1.2 presents the average literacy scores and the percentages of adults performing below
Level 2 in literacy for both the prison and the household adult populations. Again, estimates
for incarcerated adults that are significantly different from those for household adults are
marked with an asterisk. While the two populations differ on nearly every characteristic shown
in table 1.1, there are some characteristics for which there were no significant differences in
the literacy skills between the prison and household populations. In particular, there were no
measurable differences in literacy between prison and household populations for Black adults,
Hispanic adults, and adults at the same level of educational attainment.

TABLE 1.2.
Average scores and percentages of adults below Level 2 on the PIAAC literacy scale, by
selected characteristics: 2012 and 2014
Percentage below
Level 2 in literacy

Average literacy score
Characteristic

U.S. Prison U.S. Household U.S. Prison U.S. Household
249*

Overall

270

29*

Gender
Male

249*

271

29*

Female

249*

269

28*

265*

282

18*

Race/ethnicity
White
Black

240

245

Hispanic

239

235

Other

250*

268

Age intervals1
16–24

248*

273

28*

25–34

254*

281

26*

35–44

252*

275

28*

45–54

240*

267

35*

55–65

244*

262

66–74

‡

252

‡

Yes

251*

275

27*

222*

239

Born in the United States

Highest level of educational attainment
Graduate or professional degree

‡

308

‡

Bachelor's degree

‡

300

‡

Associate's degree

272

283

High school credential

259

262

Below high school

224

226

Recidivism
First time in prison

249

†

Previously incarcerated

249

†

† Not applicable.
‡ Reporting standards not met.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from the comparison category, U.S. Household.
1
While the PIAAC target population was 16- to 74-year-olds, the prison sample did not include 16- or 17-year-olds.
NOTE: Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. U.S. Household data collection
occurred in 2012 and 2014, and U.S. Prison data collection occurred in 2014. Apparent differences between in-prison racial estimates may
not be statistically significant.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Program for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC), U.S. National Supplement: Prison Study 2014, U.S. PIAAC 2012/2014.

Table 1.3 mirrors table 1.2 but presents numeracy results. In contrast to the results for literacy,
the results for numeracy reveal significant differences between the prison and the household
adult populations for nearly every characteristic.

TABLE 1.3.
Average scores and percentages of adults below Level 2 on the PIAAC numeracy scale, by
selected characteristics: 2012 and 2014
Percentage below
Level 2 in numeracy

Average numeracy score
Characteristic

U.S. Prison U.S. Household U.S. Prison U.S. Household
220*

255

52*

Male

221*

263

52*

Female

219*

248

54*

White

242*

270

36*

Black

206*

216

65*

Hispanic

210*

222

221*

257

52*

16–24

218*

254

54*

25–34

227*

267

47*

35–44

224*

261

49*

45–54

209*

253

63*

55–65

214*

252

59*

66–74

‡

236

‡

Yes

223*

259

51*

188*

232

69*

‡

300

‡

Bachelor's degree

‡

289

‡

Associate's degree

255

267

High school credential

233*

246

43*

Below high school

187*

208

79*

Overall
Gender

Race/ethnicity

Other
Age intervals

Born in the United States

Highest level of educational attainment
Graduate or professional degree

Recidivism
First time in prison

217

†

Previously incarcerated

222

†

2
Access PIAAC
background
questionnaires at
https://nces.ed.gov/
surveys/piaac/
questionnaire.asp.

WORK EXPERIENCE

The U.S. PIAAC Survey of Incarcerated Adults asked prison inmates a
series of questions related to their work experience prior to their current
incarceration, their work experience during their current incarceration,
the skills certifications that they had earned (in or outside prison), and
the frequency and types of skills they use in their current prison jobs.
Based on these questions, this chapter highlights some of the survey’s
findings related to the following topics:

•

Employment status of incarcerated adults prior to their
current incarceration

•

Sources of income of incarcerated adults in the year before
their current incarceration

•

Employment status of incarcerated adults during their
current incarceration

•
•
•
•

Job-related skill certifications
Computer use in prison jobs
Use of literacy skills in prison jobs
Use of numeracy skills in prison jobs

PRIOR WORK EXPERIENCE
What was your employment status prior to your current incarceration?5
Around two-thirds (66 percent) of the survey’s respondents reported that they were working prior
to their incarceration: about half of them (49 percent) were employed full-time, with another
16 percent working part-time (table 2.1). The other 34 percent of incarcerated adults were
not in the paid workforce: approximately 19 percent were unemployed, with the remaining
16 percent reporting they were either students, permanently disabled, looking after family
members, in retirement, or in other unspecified situations.

TABLE 2.1.
Percentage distribution of incarcerated adults by employment status prior to current
incarceration: 2014
Employment status

Percentage

Full-time employed

Part-time employed

Unemployed

Student

Apprentice, internship

In retirement

Permanently disabled

In compulsory military or community service

‡

Fulfilling domestic tasks

Other

# Rounds to zero.
‡ Reporting standards not met.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Program for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC), U.S. National Supplement: Prison Study 2014.

Participants were instructed in the following way: “Please look at this card and tell me which ONE of the statements best describes your
situation before your current incarceration. If more than one statement applies to you, please indicate the statement that best describes how
you see yourself.”

Distributions across the employment categories are provided in table 2.2 for interpretive
context. For example, the first row indicates that among incarcerated adults, 49 percent were
employed full time, 16 percent were employed part time, and 19 percent were unemployed
in the year prior to their incarceration.

TABLE 2.2.
Percentage of incarcerated adults by employment status prior to current incarceration and
selected characteristics: 2014
Percentage
Characteristic
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Race/ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
Age intervals1
16–24
25–34
35–44
45–54
55–65
66–74
Born in the United States
Yes
No
Highest level of educational attainment
Graduate or professional degree
Bachelor's degree
Associate's degree
High school credential
Below high school
Recidivism
First time in prison
Previously incarcerated
Have used a computer
Yes
No

Full-time
employed

Part-time
employed

Unemployed

51
28

16
21

18
27

54
42
55
46

16
14
17
27

16
26
15
8

30
45
55
56
65
‡

18
22
14
13
5
‡

29
19
20
16
6
‡

48
70

17
8

19
12

‡
‡
65
50
45

‡
‡
11
18
15

‡
‡
7
18
23

59
46

12
18

12
21

48
52

17
12

20
19

‡ Reporting standards not met.
1
While the PIAAC target population was 16- to 74-year-olds, the prison sample did not include 16- or 17-year-olds.
NOTE: Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Details do not sum to 100
because not all employment categories are shown. Apparent differences between estimates may not be statistically significant. To explore
statistical comparisons for this dataset, as well as for the categories not shown, see the NCES International Data Explorer (IDE) at
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/ideuspiaac/.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Program for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC), U.S. National Supplement: Prison Study 2014.

What were your sources of income in the year before your current incarceration?
Incarcerated adults were asked to indicate their income sources during the year before their
current incarcerations. Respondents could select all the categories that applied to their situation. Sixty-eight percent reported that they received income from paid jobs in the year before
their imprisonment. A little over a quarter (27 percent) received financial assistance from
family or friends, and 23 percent reported they received income from illegal sources (figure 2.1).
05_Percentile_ReportedSources.ai
FIGURE
2.1.

Percentage of incarcerated adults by reported sources of income in year prior to current
incarceration: 2014
Source of income
Paid job(s)

Family or friends

Illegal sources

Social Security
or other pension(s)

Welfare or charity

Educational
scholarship or grant

Unemployment insurance
or workman’s compensation

Other

6
0

100

Percentage
NOTE: Respondents could select all the categories that applied to their situation.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Program for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC), U.S. National Supplement: Prison Study 2014.

Literacy and numeracy performance results based on employment status prior to current incarceration
In literacy, employed females and employed adults born in the U.S. scored higher than their unemployed
peers (table 2.3). In numeracy, employed males, females, Blacks, adults born in the U.S., adults previously
incarcerated, and those who had ever used a computer scored higher than their respective unemployed peers
(table 2.4). All other comparisons in tables 2.3 and 2.4 between employed and unemployed subgroups were
not measurably different.

TABLE 2.3.
Average scores and percentages of incarcerated adults below Level 2 on the PIAAC literacy scale, by
employment status prior to current incarceration and selected characteristics: 2014
Average literacy score
Characteristic
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Race/ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
Age intervals1
16–24
25–34
35–44
45–54
55–65
66–74
Born in the United States
Yes
No
Highest level of educational attainment
Graduate or professional degree
Bachelor's degree
Associate's degree
High school credential
Below high school
Recidivism
First time in prison
Previously incarcerated
Have used a computer
Yes
No

Percentage below Level 2 in literacy

Employed

Unemployed

Employed

Unemployed

251

245

251
257*

246
237

28
23*

31
40

264
244
240
253

268
236
‡
‡

18
34
34
27

15
39
‡
‡

250
254
254
244
245
‡

‡
249
247
‡
‡
‡

25
25
27
31
32
‡

‡
29
33
‡
‡
‡

254*
220

246
‡

25
52

31
‡

‡
‡
‡
259
224

‡
‡
‡
256
229

‡
‡
‡
21
48

‡
‡
‡
24
44

250
252

‡
244

29
27

‡
33

255
222

249
‡

24
50

30
‡

‡ Reporting standards not met.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from the comparison category, incarcerated adults who were unemployed prior to current incarceration.
1
While the PIAAC target population was 16- to 74-year-olds, the prison sample did not include 16- or 17-year-olds.
NOTE: Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC),
U.S. National Supplement: Prison Study 2014.

TABLE 2.4.
Average scores and percentages of incarcerated adults below Level 2 on the PIAAC numeracy scale, by
employment status prior to current incarceration and selected characteristics: 2014
Average numeracy score
Characteristic

Unemployed

Employed

Unemployed

225*

214

Male

225*

215

Female

224*

209

Overall

Employed

Percentage below Level 2 in numeracy

Gender

Race/ethnicity
White

243

248

Black

213*

198

Hispanic

211

‡

Other

226

‡

Age intervals1
16–24

225

‡

25–34

230

220

35–44

227

218

45–54

216

‡

55–65

216

‡

66–74

‡

215

‡

Born in the United States
Yes

228*

186

Highest level of educational attainment
Graduate or professional degree

‡

Bachelor's degree

‡

Associate's degree

‡

High school credential

235

230

Below high school

191

190

Recidivism
First time in prison

220

‡

Previously incarcerated

227*

213

Yes

229*

217

187

‡

Have used a computer

CURRENT PRISON JOB
Do you currently have any prison job?
For almost all the demographic characteristics presented in table 2.5, higher percentages of
incarcerated adults reported that they held prison jobs than reported that they did not. In
the few exceptions to this pattern, there were no measurable differences in the percentages
(table 2.5).

TABLE 2.5.
Percentage distribution of incarcerated adults by whether they currently have a prison job
and selected characteristics: 2014
Percentage
Currently has
prison job

Does not have
prison job

61*

Male

62*

Female

55*

White

63*

Black

60*

Hispanic

61*

Other

16–24

25–34

57*

35–44

65*

45–54

69*

55–65

70*

66–74

‡

Characteristic
Overall
Gender

Race/ethnicity

Age intervals1

Born in the United States
Yes

61*

Graduate or professional degree

‡

Bachelor's degree

‡

Associate's degree

73*

Highest level of educational attainment

High school credential

67*

Below high school

First time in prison

62*

Previously incarcerated

61*

Yes

66*

61*

Yes

71*

59*

Yes

63*

58*

Recidivism

Received skill certification for information technology (IT)

Received job-related skill certification other than information
technology (IT)

Have used a computer

‡ Reporting standards not met.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from the comparison category, incarcerated adults who do not currently have a prison job.
1
While the PIAAC target population was 16- to 74-year-olds, the prison sample did not include 16- or 17-year-olds.
NOTE: Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Detail may not sum
to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Program for the International Assessment of
Adult Competencies (PIAAC), U.S. National Supplement: Prison Study 2014.

Literacy and numeracy performance results based on currently holding a prison job
Incarcerated adults currently holding a prison job had higher average literacy scores than
their peers who did not have a prison job, with no measurable difference in average numeracy
scores between the two groups (tables 2.6 and 2.7). Incarcerated adults serving their first
term in prison who held prison jobs scored higher in literacy than their peers not holding
a prison job (255 versus 241).

TABLE 2.6.
Average scores and percentages of incarcerated adults below Level 2 on the PIAAC literacy
scale, by whether they currently have a prison job and selected characteristics: 2014
Average literacy score
Currently
has
prison job

Characteristic
Overall

Does not
have
prison job

Percentage below Level 2
in literacy
Currently
has
prison job

Does not
have
prison job

252*

245

Male

252

245

Female

253

245

Gender

Race/ethnicity
White

269*

258

Black

241

239

Hispanic

241

238

‡

Other
Age intervals1
16–24

248

247

25–34

257

249

35–44

254

248

45–54

240

55–65

257

‡

66–74

‡

247

Born in the United States
Yes

254*

‡

‡
‡
‡
260
222

‡
‡
‡
255
227

‡
‡
‡
21
51

‡
‡
‡
22
45

Highest level of educational attainment
Graduate or professional degree
Bachelor's degree
Associate's degree
High school credential
Below high school
Recidivism
First time in prison

255*

241

Previously incarcerated

251

247

Yes

‡

252

244

Yes

261

251

249

244

Yes

256*

248

222

‡

Received skill certification for information
technology (IT)

Received job-related skill certification other
than information technology (IT)

Have used a computer

‡ Reporting standards not met.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from the comparison category, incarcerated adults who do not currently have a prison job.
1
While the PIAAC target population was 16- to 74-year-olds, the prison sample did not include 16- or 17-year-olds.
NOTE: Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Program for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC), U.S. National Supplement: Prison Study 2014.

TABLE 2.7.
Average scores and percentages of incarcerated adults below Level 2 on the PIAAC numeracy
scale, by whether they currently have a prison job and selected characteristics: 2014
Average numeracy score

Percentage below Level 2
in numeracy

Currently
has
prison job

Does not
have
prison job

Currently
has
prison job

Does not
have
prison job

223

216

50*

Male

223

216

Female

220

217

White

245

237

Black

207

205

Hispanic

213

206

‡

16–24

221

215

25–34

231

222

35–44

225

221

45–54

208

210

55–65

224

‡

66–74

‡

Yes

226

218

‡

Graduate or professional degree

‡

Bachelor's degree

‡

Associate's degree

‡

High school credential

233

231

Below high school

183

191

First time in prison

222

211

Previously incarcerated

224

219

Characteristic
Overall
Gender

Race/ethnicity

Other
Age intervals

Born in the United States

Highest level of educational attainment

Recidivism

Received skill certification for information
technology (IT)
Yes

‡

222

215

50*

Yes

232

230

220

214

Yes

228*

219

47*

183

‡

Received job-related skill certification other
than information technology (IT)

Have used a computer
‡

‡ Reporting standards not met.
* Significantly different (p < .05) from the comparison category, incarcerated adults who do not currently have a prison job.
1
While the PIAAC target population was 16- to 74-year-olds, the prison sample did not include 16- or 17-year-olds.
NOTE: Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Program for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC), U.S. National Supplement: Prison Study 2014.

S K I L L C E R T I F I C AT I O N S A N D J O B - R E L AT E D S K I L L S
Have you received any type of IT certification, that is, certification for information
technology skills?
Five percent of incarcerated adults reported earning an information technology (IT) certification.
Incarcerated adults with IT certification scored higher in numeracy than their peers without IT
credentials (figure 2.2). Certifications could have been earned in or outside prison.
FIGURE 2.2.
Average scores of incarcerated adults on the PIAAC literacy and numeracy scales, by whether they
have
any type of information technology (IT) certification: 2014
05_Avg_scores_LitNumPS_02.ai
Scale score
500

Scale score
500

Literacy

275

275
258

250

249

250

225

200

Numeracy

Yes
(5)

No
(95)

240*
220

Yes
(5)

No
(95)

* Significantly different (p < .05) from the comparison category, incarcerated adults responding “No.”
NOTE: In the figure, percentages of incarcerated adults in each response category are shown in parentheses beneath the applicable bar.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Program for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC), U.S. National Supplement: Prison Study 2014.

Other than IT certification, have you ever received any type of job-related skill certification?
Twenty percent of incarcerated adults reported receiving a skill certification in a field other than
information technology. Those with skills certifications scored higher in literacy and numeracy than
their peers without such certifications (figure 2.3). Certifications could have been earned in or outside prison.
FIGURE 2.3.
Average scores of incarcerated adults on the PIAAC literacy and numeracy scales, by whether they
have
any type of job-related skill certification other than information technology (IT): 2014
05_Avg_scores_LitNumPS_03.ai
Scale score
500

Scale score
500

Literacy

275

Numeracy

275
258*
247

250

250
231*

225

200

Yes
(20)

No
(80)

218

Yes
(20)

No
(80)

Do you use a computer in your current prison job?
While 37 percent of incarcerated adults reported using a computer in their jobs prior to their
incarcerations (data not shown), only 10 percent reported using a computer in their prison job
assignments. Incarcerated adults who used a computer in their current job scored higher in literacy
than their peers who did not use a computer (figure 2.4).

FIGURE 2.4.
Average scores of incarcerated adults with prison jobs on the PIAAC literacy and numeracy scales,
by whether they use a computer in their current prison job: 2014
05_Avg_scores_LitNumPS_04.ai

Scale score
500
275

Scale score
500

Literacy

275

263*
251

250

225

200

Yes
(10)

Numeracy

No
(90)

234
222

Yes
(10)

No
(90)

* Significantly different (p < .05) from the comparison category, incarcerated adults with prison jobs responding “No.”
NOTE: In the figure, percentages of incarcerated adults in each response category are shown in parentheses beneath the applicable bar.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Program for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC), U.S. National Supplement: Prison Study 2014.

Use of literacy and numeracy skills among incarcerated adults with prison jobs
Incarcerated adults were asked a series of questions about the types of activities they undertook
as part of their current prison jobs. Results for the questions about reading activities and
activities using numerical information are shown below. Many inmates reported never having
to use their literacy or numeracy skills in their current prison work assignments (table 2.8).
For example, 47 percent of incarcerated adults reported never reading directions or instructions as part of their current prison job, and 82 percent reported never using or calculating
fractions, decimals, or percentages. For context, in the household population surveyed as part
of PIAAC, approximately 12 percent of adults reported never reading directions or instructions
as part of their current job, and 34 percent reported never using or calculating fractions,
decimals, or percentages.

TABLE 2.8.
Percentage distribution of incarcerated adults with prison jobs by the frequency with which
various literacy and numeracy skills are used in their current prison job: 2014

Literacy skills

Percentage

In your current prison job, how often do you
usually read …

Never

At least some
of the time

Directions or instructions

Letters or memos

Manuals or reference materials

Articles in newspapers, magazines, or newsletters

Books

Articles in professional journals or scholarly publications

Diagrams, maps, or schematics

Bills, invoices, bank statements, or other financial
statements

Numeracy skills

Percentage

In your current prison job, how often do you
usually …

Never

At least some
of the time

Use or calculate fractions, decimals, or percentages

Use a calculator – either hand-held or computer-based

Prepare charts, graphs, or tables

Use simple algebra or formulas

Calculate prices, costs, or budgets

Use more advanced math or statistics such as calculus,
complex algebra, trigonometry, or use of regression
techniques

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. “At least some of the time” includes data from the response options “Less than
once a month, Less than once a week but at least once a month, At least once a week but not every day, and Every day.”
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Program for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC), U.S. National Supplement: Prison Study 2014.

Results for other job skills, such as writing activities and the use of computers, are available
in the NCES International Data Explorer (IDE) at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/ideuspiaac/.

Explore on your own
The interactive PIAAC Results Portal allows you to produce figures and tables for those variables
that interest you most. After you select the variable(s) of your choice, you can display results in
terms of average scores and proficiency levels on the three PIAAC scales: literacy, numeracy, and
problem solving in technology-rich environments. You can also download the results in an Excel
spreadsheet. Access the portal at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/results/makeselections.aspx.

3
Access PIAAC
sample questions at
https://nces.ed.gov/
surveys/piaac/
sample_lit.asp.

E D U C AT I O N A N D T R A I N I N G I N P R I S O N

The U.S. PIAAC Survey of Incarcerated Adults asked prison inmates a series
of questions related to academic and job training programs that they were
participating in. Based on these questions, this chapter highlights some of
the PIAAC survey’s findings related to the following topics:

•

Highest level of education completed by incarcerated adults during
their current incarceration

•
•

Enrollment in academic classes or programs of study

•
•

Participation in a job skills or job training program

•

Rates of participation in academic and vocational programs by
amount of time before expected release from prison

•

Access to library services

Reasons for enrolling and not enrolling in academic classes or
programs of study

Reasons for participating and not participating in a job skills or job
training program

AC A D E M I C P R O G R A M S
During your current period of incarceration, what is the highest level of
education you completed?
Almost three in five incarcerated adults (58 percent) completed no further formal education
beyond the level they had on their entry to prison, and about one in five (21 percent) obtained
a high school credential during their current period of incarceration (table 3.1).

TABLE 3.1.
Percentage of incarcerated adults by the highest level of education completed during their
current incarceration: 2014
Highest level of education

Percentage

Grades 7–9

High school diploma or GED

Pre-associate education

Certificate from college or trade school

Associate’s degree

Bachelor’s degree

No further education level completed

# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Results for the categories Grades 1-6, Master’s degree, Professional degree, and
Doctorate degree are not shown because reporting standards were not met.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Program for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC), U.S. National Supplement: Prison Study 2014.

Distributions across the educational categories are provided in table 3.2 for interpretive context.
Care should be taken when making comparisons across these categories because incarcerated adults
enter prison with widely differing amounts of prior educational experience. Those who did not
complete further education during their incarceration include adults both who have completed less
than a high school education as well as adults who have completed a Master’s degree or higher.

TABLE 3.2.
Percentage of incarcerated adults by highest level of education completed during
current incarceration and selected characteristics: 2014

Characteristic
Overall
Gender
Male
Female
Race/ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
Age intervals1
16–24
25–34
35–44
45–54
55–65
66–74
Born in the United States
Yes
No
Recidivism
First time in prison
Previously incarcerated
Highest level of
parental education
At least one parent attained
college degree
At least one parent attained
high school degree
Neither parent attained
high school degree
Diagnosed or identified as
having a learning disability
Yes
No
Have used a computer
Yes
No

Grades 7–9
8

Percentage
High school
Certificate
diploma or from college or
GED
trade school
21
7

No further
education
completed
58

8
5

21
12

7
9

58
68

7
7
10
5

20
21
21
23

8
6
9
5

57
61
55
62

10
7
8
7
6
‡

20
22
22
14
25
‡

5
7
9
6
12
‡

63
58
56
62
48
‡

8
8

21
20

8
3

58
66

5
8

23
20

9
7

57
59

14
6

17
22

4
8

60
58

8
11

21
23

8
2

57
59

‡ Reporting standards not met.
1
While the PIAAC target population was 16- to 74-year-olds, the prison sample did not include 16- or 17-year-olds.
NOTE: Percentage distributions for all the variables shown here can be found in Table 1.1, with the exception of “highest level of
parental education,” “diagnosed or identified as having a learning disability,” and “have used a computer,” which can be found on
the portal. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Detail may not
sum to totals because not all reporting categories are shown. Results for the categories Grades 1-6, Pre-associate education,
Associate’s degree, Bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree, Professional degree, and Doctorate degree are not shown. The item response
rate for parental education is below 85 percent. Missing data have not been explicitly accounted for. Apparent differences between
estimates may not be statistically significant. To explore statistical comparisons for this dataset, as well as for the categories not
shown, see the NCES International Data Explorer (IDE) at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/ideuspiaac/.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Program for the International Assessment of
Adult Competencies (PIAAC), U.S. National Supplement: Prison Study 2014.

For incarcerated adults, more education completed was associated with higher skills in both
literacy and numeracy (tables 3.3 and 3.4). Average scores and percentages below Level 2
are shown for incarcerated adults overall but not for the demographic characteristics shown
in table 3.2 because sample sizes and response percentages do not permit reporting crosstabulated estimates for most categories. In addition, please note that results are not shown
for “no further education completed” because the category includes adults of all levels of
education (completed before the current incarceration).

TABLE 3.3.
Average scores and percentages of incarcerated adults below Level 2 on the PIAAC literacy
scale, by highest level of education completed during current incarceration: 2014
Highest level of education completed
during current incarceration
Certificate
High school
from college or
Grades 7–9 diploma or GED
trade school
226
251
271
49
24
13

Measure
Average literacy score
Percentage below Level 2 in literacy

NOTE: Results for the categories Grades 1-6, Pre-associate education, Associate’s degree, Bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree, Professional
degree, Doctorate degree, and No further education completed are not shown. Apparent differences between estimates may not be
statistically significant.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Program for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC), U.S. National Supplement: Prison Study 2014.

TABLE 3.4.
Average scores and percentages of incarcerated adults below Level 2 on the PIAAC numeracy
scale, by highest level of education completed during current incarceration: 2014
Highest level of education completed
during current incarceration
Certificate
High school
from college or
Grades 7–9 diploma or GED
trade school
192
223
251
77
49
25

Measure
Average numeracy score
Percentage below Level 2 in numeracy

Do you want to enroll in an academic class or program of study?
While only 21 percent of prisoners were studying for a formal degree or certificate (data not shown),
over two-thirds (70 percent) of incarcerated adults reported that they wanted to enroll in an
academic class or program. Those desiring to enroll scored higher in literacy and numeracy than
their peers who did not want to enroll (figure 3.1). Among those who wanted to enroll, 25 percent
were on a waiting list for academic classes or programs of study in 2014 (data not shown).

FIGURE 3.1.
Average scores of incarcerated adults on the PIAAC literacy and numeracy scales, by
whether
they want to enroll in an academic class or program of study: 2014
Ch-6-02_avg_scores_L-N-PS-TRE.ai
Scale score
500

Scale score
500

Literacy

275
250

275
252*

250

243

225

200

Numeracy

Yes
(70)

No
(30)

223*
212

Yes
(70)

No
(30)

Which one of the following degree or certificate programs would you
like to enroll in?
The most desirable educational programs for incarcerated adults who wanted to enroll in
academic programs were those which offered a certificate from college or trade school, with
29 percent indicating they wanted to enroll in such programs. High school completion and
associate’s degree programs were the next most popular (table 3.5).

TABLE 3.5.
Percentage distribution of incarcerated adults who wanted to enroll in an academic class,
by the degree or certificate program they would like to enroll in: 2014
Type of program

Percentage

High school diploma or GED

Pre-associate education

Certificate from college or trade school

Associate’s degree

Bachelor’s degree

Master’s degree

Professional degree

Doctorate degree

NOTE: Exact wording of background question: “Which one of the following degree or certificate programs would you like to enroll in?
Please select from the following... ” followed by a series of selections. Those selections with reportable data are shown in the table. Detail
may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Program for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC), U.S. National Supplement: Prison Study 2014.

Incarcerated adults who wanted to enroll in associate’s or bachelor’s degree programs scored
higher in literacy and numeracy than their peers wanting to enroll in high school or
pre-associate programs (figure 3.2).

FIGURE 3.2.
Average scores of incarcerated adults who wanted to enroll in academic programs on the
PIAAC literacy and numeracy scales, by the degree or certificate program they would like to
enroll in: 2014
Scale score

Scale score

500

500
278

275
256
250
225

264

242
222

High school
diploma or GED

275
251

250

240
227

225

200

Literacy

211
185

Pre-associate
education
Certificate from
college or trade
school
Associate’s
degree
Bachelor’s
degree

Numeracy

NOTE: Average scores could not be calculated for those wanting to enroll in graduate degree programs.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Program for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC), U.S. National Supplement: Prison Study 2014.

Which ONE of the following statements best describes the reason you
would like to enroll in this program of study?
Forty-one percent of incarcerated adults who wanted to enroll in academic programs indicated
that their main reason for wanting to enroll in a degree or certificate program was to increase
their knowledge or skills in a subject that interests them (table 3.6). Another 47 percent had
future job considerations as their main reason (39 percent to increase chances of getting a
job on release and 8 percent to increase chances of getting a prison job assignment).

TABLE 3.6.
Percentage distribution of incarcerated adults who wanted to enroll in academic programs by
the main reason they would like to enroll in a degree or certificate program: 2014
Main reason to enroll in program

Percentage

To increase knowledge or skills in a subject that interests them

To increase the possibilities of getting a job when released

To increase the possibilities of getting a prison job assignment

To obtain a certificate

Other

Family related reasons

Required to participate

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Program for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC), U.S. National Supplement: Prison Study 2014.

What is the main reason you did not want to enroll in an academic class
or program of study?
Twenty percent of incarcerated adults who did not want to enroll in academic programs indicated
that the academic programs at their facilities were either not useful or were of poor quality
(table 3.7). About half had reasons for not enrolling that were not indicated in the array of
selections on the questionnaire. Their open-ended responses included wanting to devote their
time to working on their legal appeals, their imminent release from prison, being already
enrolled in some type of class or training, or “not interested.”

TABLE 3.7.
Percentage distribution of incarcerated adults who did not want to enroll in academic
programs by the main reason they did not want to enroll in an academic class or program
of study: 2014
Main reason not to enroll in program

Percentage

The classes and programs offered are not useful

The quality of the program being offered is poor

Other

Do not have the qualifications necessary to enroll

Have a volunteer or work assignment they do not want to give up

Want to enroll in a higher level of classes than are available

The waiting list is too long

TRAINING
During your current period of incarceration, have you participated in a job
skills or job training program, for example, a computer skills program that
teaches Microsoft Word?
Twenty-three percent of incarcerated adults said that they had participated in a job skills
or job training program during their current term in prison. Those who had participated
scored higher in literacy and numeracy (figure 3.3). Fourteen percent of incarcerated adults
were on a waiting list for entering a job training program (data not shown).

FIGURE 3.3.
Average scores of incarcerated adults on the PIAAC literacy and numeracy scales, by
whether they have participated in a job skills or job training program during their
current
incarceration: 2014
Ch-6-04_avg_scores_L-N-PS-TRE.ai
Scale score
500

Scale score
500

Literacy

275

Numeracy

275
258*
247

250

225

200

Yes
(23)

No
(77)

235*
216

Yes
(23)

No
(77)

What were/are your main reason(s) for wanting to participate in this program?
Over 60 percent of incarcerated adults who participated in training programs indicated that
their main reason for wanting to participate in job training was “self improvement,” followed
by 43 percent who wanted to increase their chances of getting a job on their release (table 3.8).
TABLE 3.8.
Percentage of incarcerated adults who participated in training programs by the main reasons
they wanted to participate in a job skills or job training program: 2014
Main reason to participate in program

Percentage

Self improvement

To increase the possibilities of getting a job when released

To increase the possibilities of getting a prison job assignment

Family related reasons

Required to participate

Other

NOTE: Participants were instructed to select all the choices that applied to their situation. Percentages do not sum to 100 because
participants selected all that applied.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Program for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC), U.S. National Supplement: Prison Study 2014.

What is the main reason you did not attend a course or program to learn
job skills or job training?
Thirty percent of incarcerated adults who did not participate in job training (and who were not
on a waiting list) indicated that they were ineligible to attend job training courses, with another
11 percent indicating they did not have the necessary educational qualifications (table 3.9). In
the open-ended responses recorded under the “other” category, the most prevalent response
was that job skills or job training courses were unavailable at their facilities.

TABLE 3.9.
Percentage distribution of incarcerated adults who did not participate in job training by the
main reason they did not attend a course or program to learn job skills or job training: 2014
Main reason not to attend program

Percentage

Do not have the educational qualifications to attend

Not eligible to attend

Currently on a waiting list to attend a course or program

Not interested in the programs offered

Other

When do you expect to be released from prison?
More than half of incarcerated adults had 2 years or less remaining on their sentences
(54 percent), with about one in five (19 percent) having fewer than 6 months left to serve
(table 3.10). There were no statistically significant differences in the percentages of incarcerated
adults participating in various academic or vocational programs based on their expected
time of release (table 3.11).

TABLE 3.10.
Percentage distribution of incarcerated adults by when they expect to be released
from prison: 2014
Amount of time remaining before expected release from prison

Percentage

Less than 6 months

6 to 12 months

1 to 2 years

More than 2 years

Never

TABLE 3.11.
Percentage of incarcerated adults who participated in various academic and vocational
programs during their current incarceration, by when they expect to be released from
prison: 2014
Amount of time remaining before
expected release from prison
2 years
or less

More than
2 years

Currently studying for a formal degree or certificate

Participated in a job skills or job training program during their
current incarceration

Used classes or a tutor to improve their basic reading, writing,
and math skills during their current incarceration

Used classes or a tutor to prepare for the General Educational
Development (GED) test during their current incarceration

Activity

NOTE: Apparent differences between estimates may not be statistically significant.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Program for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC), U.S. National Supplement: Prison Study 2014.

Do you have access to library services, other than a legal library?
A large majority of incarcerated adults have access to prison libraries (89 percent). Compared to
incarcerated adults who do not have library access, those who have access to library services
scored higher in literacy and numeracy (figure 3.4).

FIGURE 3.4.
Average scores of incarcerated adults on the PIAAC literacy and numeracy scales, by whether
they have access to library services: 2014
Ch-6-04_avg_scores_L-N-PS-TRE.ai

Scale score
500

Literacy

275
250

Numeracy

275
251*

250

236

225

200

222*
206

Yes
(89)

No
(11)

Yes
(89)

No
(11)

SUMMARY

This report explores the relationship between the background
characteristics and cognitive skills of U.S. prisoners across a variety of
dimensions. It also compares their demographic profile and skills with
those of the U.S. household population. The purpose of this report is to
introduce interested readers, policymakers, administrators, educators,
and researchers to selected findings from the U.S. PIAAC Survey of
Incarcerated Adults. While these selected findings do not represent a
complete review of all observed differences in the data, they do provide
a broad overview of the results and suggest potential avenues for
future research using this rich dataset. The following are among the key
selected findings in this report.
Comparison of U.S. incarcerated adults to the U.S. household
population
• The U.S. incarcerated population had lower average literacy and numeracy scores than
the U.S. household population (tables 1.2 and 1.3).
• Compared to their peers in the general U.S. household population, Black and Hispanic
incarcerated adults scored lower on average in numeracy, but not measurably different in
literacy (tables 1.2 and 1.3).
• Average literacy scores were not measurably different between incarcerated adults and
their household peers with the same level of educational attainment (table 1.2).
• In numeracy, incarcerated adults whose highest level of educational attainment was a
high school credential scored lower on average than adults living in households with the
same level of educational attainment. The same was true when comparing the average
numeracy scores of those with less than a high school credential (table 1.3).

Prison jobs and skills use
• Around two-thirds (66 percent) of the survey’s respondents reported that they were employed prior to their incarceration (table 2.1) and 61 percent reported currently having a
prison job (table 2.5).
• Forty-eight percent of younger prisoners (18- to 24-year-olds) were employed prior to
their incarceration and 50 percent reported currently having a prison job. Among 55- to
65-year-olds, 70 percent were employed prior to their incarceration and the same percentage reported currently having a prison job (tables 2.2 and 2.5).
• Incarcerated adults with higher levels of education were more likely to have a prison job:
48 percent of those having less than a high school credential had prison jobs, compared
with 73 percent of those holding Associate’s degrees (table 2.5).
• Incarcerated adults with a prison job scored higher on average in literacy than their peers
without a prison job; however, average numeracy scores were not measurably different
(tables 2.6 and 2.7).
• Many incarcerated adults reported never having to use their literacy or numeracy skills in
their current prison job (table 2.8).

Participation in education and skills training in prison
• Forty-two percent of incarcerated adults completed some level of formal education
during their current period of incarceration (table 3.1).
• Over two-thirds (70 percent) of incarcerated adults wanted to enroll in an academic class
or program (figure 3.1).
• Among incarcerated adults who wanted to enroll in an academic class or program,
80 percent wanted to do so either to learn more or to improve their job prospects after
they get released (table 3.6).
• Incarcerated adults who wanted to enroll in academic classes or programs of study scored
higher on average in literacy and numeracy than their peers who did not want to enroll
(figure 3.1).
• Twenty-three percent of incarcerated adults participated in job training programs during
their current prison term (figure 3.3).
• Incarcerated adults who had participated in job training programs scored higher on average
in literacy and numeracy than those who had not participated (figure 3.3).

REFERENCES
Greenberg, E., Dunleavy, E., and Kutner, M. (2007). Literacy Behind Bars: Results from
the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy Prison Survey (NCES 2007-473). U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007473.pdf
Haigler, K.O., Harlow, C., O’Connor, P., and Campbell, A. (1994). Literacy Behind Prison
Walls: Profiles of the Prison Population from the National Adult Literacy Survey (NCES
94-102). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs94/94102.pdf
OECD (2012). Literacy, Numeracy, and Problem Solving in Technology-Rich Environments:
Framework for the OECD Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Publishing.
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/literacy-numeracy-and-problem-solving
-in-technology-rich-environments_9789264128859-en
OECD (2016). The Survey of Adult Skills: Reader’s Companion, Second Edition, OECD Skills
Studies. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264258075-en
Rust, K.F., and Rao, J.N.K. (1996). Replication Methods for Analyzing Complex Survey
Data. Statistical Methods in Medical Research: Special Issue on the Analysis of Complex
Surveys, 5: 283-310.

M O R E I N F O R M AT I O N A B O U T P I A AC
This report provides findings for only a few select results. For more PIAAC results and
information about the assessment:
• Preview and print a selection of data on the performance of U.S. adults on the PIAAC
assessment for various topics across all three domains at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/
index.asp.
• Explore U.S. PIAAC data in the NCES International Data Explorer (IDE) at
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/international/ide/.
• Access public-use data files that are available at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/
datafiles.asp.
• Access restricted-use data files that are available to NCES Restricted-use Data Licensees.
More information on licenses can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/licenses.asp.

A P P E N D I X A : ME T HOD OLOGY A N D
TEC HN I C A L N OT ES

This appendix describes the assessment design, sampling, data
collection, weighting, and variance estimation, scaling, and statistical
testing procedures used to collect and analyze the data for this PIAAC
report. The PIAAC sample is a combination of the following three data
collections: (1) the first round of U.S. household data collection was
conducted from August 25, 2011 through April 3, 2012; (2) the second
round of U.S. household data collection occurred from August 26, 2013
through May 5, 2014; and (3) the prison population data collection
occurred from February 10, 2014 through June 13, 2014.
Assessment Design
The PIAAC psychometric assessment design was complex because the assessment measured
four domains—literacy, numeracy, reading components, and problem solving in technologyrich environments—across two modes of administration—paper-and-pencil and computer
instruments. In summary, the PIAAC psychometric assessment design provided for the
following information:
• Reading component skills among lower-performing adults in each participating country,
as well as among those who reported not knowing how to use a computer
• Population distributions in literacy, which could be linked to the International Adult
Literacy Survey (IALS) and Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey (ALL)
• Population distributions in numeracy, which could be linked to ALL
• Accurate estimates of population distributions and a baseline measure of problem solving
in technology-rich environments for future estimation of trends over time
• Insights into strategies and processes that adults use when they responded to the tasks
on problem solving in technology-rich environments
• Pairwise covariance estimates among the various measures, including the relationships
between literacy and numeracy, literacy and reading components skills, literacy and
problem solving in technology-rich environments, numeracy and reading components
skills, and numeracy and problem solving in technology-rich environments
A–1

• Information that could be used to analyze the relationship between the measured
competencies and the PIAAC behavioral measures and social/economic measures (from
the responses to the background questions and job requirements approach module)
PIAAC was designed as a computer-based assessment. Respondents who had little or
no familiarity with computers or who refused to take the assessment on a computer,
however, were directed to an equivalent paper-and-pencil version of the assessment that
tested skills in the domains of literacy and numeracy only.1 Approximately 15 percent
of the respondents in the first round of U.S. data collection, 23 percent in the second
round of U.S. data collection, and 36 percent in the prison study were directed to the
paper-and-pencil path. Regardless of whether they took the assessment in the computer
or paper-and-pencil format, all respondents first took a “Core” test to assess their capacity
to undertake the full assessment. Those who were unsuccessful at the Core test were
directed to the assessment of reading components. Those who succeeded at the Core test
proceeded to the full assessment.
The PIAAC assessment included an adaptive element that allowed for automatic scoring.
Based on their performance at different points in the assessment, respondents taking
the computer-based version were directed to different “testlets” that contained items of
different average difficulty in the domains of literacy and numeracy.

Sampling
The target population of the PIAAC Prison Study was inmates age 16 to 74 from state,
federal, and private prisons in the United States. The target sample size was a minimum
of 1,200 completed cases including at least 240 females and at least 960 males. In order
to achieve this goal, a two-stage, stratified sample was selected. The sampling frame was
created using the most recent (2005) Bureau of Justice Statistics Census of State and
Federal Adult Correctional Facilities and the most recent (2012) Directory of Adult and
Juvenile Correctional Departments, Institutions, Agencies, and Probation and Parole
Authorities available from the American Correctional Association. The prison sampling
frame was first stratified by whether or not the prisons house female inmates only. Next,
100 prisons were selected from the sampling frame, among which 80 were male-only or
co-ed prisons and 20 were female-only prisons. The prisons were selected systematically
and with probabilities proportional to the measure of size (annual daily population).
The female-only prisons were selected with higher probabilities than the male-only or
co-ed prisons. At the second stage of selection, inmate sampling frames were created by
interviewers at the time they visited the prisons in most cases. The frames consisted of all
inmates occupying a bed the night before inmate sampling was to be conducted. Prisons
operated by the Bureau of Prisons provided the rosters of inmates a week before the visit. A
sampling algorithm was implemented within the computer-assisted personal interviewing
(CAPI) system to randomly select the inmates among those identified to be eligible. In
total, 1,546 eligible inmates were selected within sampled prisons. Once selected, the
prison background questionnaire (a variation of the household background questionnaire)

See p. 80 of The Survey of Adult Skills, Reader’s Companion, Second Edition (OECD 2016).

A–2

was completed. Upon completion of the prison background questionnaire, the respondent
was administered the assessment as described in the “Assessment Design” section above.
The sample was subject to unit nonresponse from the background questionnaire, assessment, and item nonresponse to background questionnaire items. Of the 100 sampled
prisons, one sampled male prison and one sampled female prison were closed before the
interviews started and became ineligible. Two male prisons refused to participate in the
survey and each was replaced with a substitute prison with a similar geographic location,
security level, type, and size. One sampled female prison was found to have converted to
an all-male institution. As a result, there were 98 participating prisons among which 80
were male/co-ed and 18 were female. The prison response rate was 98.0 percent without
substitute prisons and 100.0 percent with substitute prisons.
Of the roughly 1,546 sampled inmates, approximately 1,320 completed the prison background questionnaire. Of the roughly 230 inmates who did not complete the background
questionnaire, 4 were unable to do so because of a literacy-related barrier: either the inability to
communicate in English or Spanish (the two languages in which the background questionnaire
was administered) or a learning or mental disability. The final response rate for the prison background questionnaire—which included respondents who completed it and respondents who
were unable to complete it because of a literacy-related barrier—was 85.8 percent weighted.
Of the roughly 1,320 inmates who completed the prison background questionnaire,
approximately 1,270 completed the literacy assessment. An additional 10 were unable to
complete the assessment for literacy-related reasons, and 1 for a missing paper booklet.
The final response rate for the overall assessment was 97.7 percent weighted.
The overall weighted response rate for the prison sample was 82.2 percent (treating
substitute prisons as nonresponse).
The prison background questionnaire stage had unit response rates above 85 percent and
thus an analysis of the potential for nonresponse bias was not required according to the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) statistical standards.

TABLE A-1.
Weighted response rate for the Prison Study
Component

Response Rate

Prison eligibility rate

98.0

Prison response rate (without substitute prisons)

98.0

Prison response rate (with substitute prisons)

100.0

Background Questionnaire – Response Rate

85.8

Assessment – Response Rate

97.7

Overall – Response Rate (treating substitute prisons as nonresponse)

82.2

A–3

Differences between the Household and Prison Questionnaires
PIAAC background questionnaires are used to identify (a) what skills participants regularly
use in their jobs and in their home life, (b) how participants acquire those skills, and (c) how
those skills are distributed throughout the population. In order to obtain this information,
the background questionnaire asks participants about their education and training; present
and past work experience; the skills they use at work; their use of specific literacy, numeracy,
and ICT skills at work and at home; personal traits; and background information.
For the prison study, the background questionnaire was tailored to address the needs and
experiences of incarcerated adults with the assistance of correctional researchers and practitioners. Specifically, the prison background questionnaire focused on collecting information
about various educational and training activities in prison, such as participation in academic
programs and ESL classes, experiences with prison jobs, and involvement in vocational
training and nonacademic programs such as employment readiness classes. Questions that were
added or edited to refer to experiences in prison have “P” at the beginning of the variable
name (e.g., P_Q170). Several questions were adopted from the household background
questionnaire and may use the same variable naming convention as the household items,
even if they refer to experiences in prison. Both the household and prison questionnaires
were adaptive.
For more information about the background questionnaires, see the NCES PIAAC website
at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/questionnaire.asp.

Data Collection
Whenever possible, interviewers administered the background questionnaire and assessment in
a private setting (e.g., home or library for the household sample and private room or office
for the prison sample). Using the computerized interview and assessment software provided
by the PIAAC Consortium, the interviewer read the background questionnaire questions
from a laptop and entered all responses directly into the laptop. Skip patterns and follow-up
probes for contradictory or out-of-range responses were programmed into the interview
software. At the completion of the background questionnaire, the participant was administered the computer-based Core or the paper-and-pencil based Core if the participant could
not or would not use the computer. Upon the completion and scoring of the Core tasks, the
respondent was routed to the computer-based assessment (CBA), the paper-based assessment
(PBA) of literacy and numeracy, or the paper-based reading components. The background
questionnaire and the assessment took approximately 2 hours to complete; however, the time
varied by the respondent. The number of assessment items also varied based on the respondents’ performance on the Core and the adaptive routing implemented in the automated
portion of the assessment.

A–4

The progress through the assessment was controlled by the computer based on the respondent’s performance on various components of the assessment. The PIAAC assessment was
composed of the following:
The Core consisted of three modules: the CBA Core Stage 1, the CBA Core Stage 2, and
the PBA Core.
• The CBA Core Stage 1 included six tasks and was designed to determine whether the
participant had the basic set of skills needed to complete the computer-based assessment.
To pass the CBA Core Stage 1, the participant needed to correctly answer at least three
of the first five tasks, plus the sixth task (highlighting text). CBA Core Stage 1 questions
were automatically scored by the computer, and a participant who passed the CBA
Core Stage 1 continued on to the CBA Core Stage 2. A participant who did not pass
the CBA Core Stage 1 was routed to the PBA Core.
• The CBA Core Stage 2 included six tasks that measured basic literacy and numeracy
skills necessary to undertake the assessment. CBA Core Stage 2 questions were automatically scored by the computer, and a participant who passed the CBA Core Stage 2
continued on to the computer-based assessment. A participant who did not pass the
CBA Core Stage 2 was routed directly to the paper-based reading components section.
• The PBA Core consisted of eight tasks and measured basic literacy and numeracy skills
necessary to undertake the assessment. PBA Core questions were interviewer-scored
and entered into the computer to determine whether the participant passed the PBA
Core. A participant who passed the PBA Core continued on to the paper-based assessment
of literacy and numeracy and then to the paper-based reading components section. A
participant who did not pass the PBA Core was routed directly to the reading components section.
The assessment was administered in CBA and PBA modes.
• The CBA consisted of three “testlets” of tasks at Stage 1 (9 items) and four “testlets” at
Stage 2 (11 items). Each respondent completed two testlets that included items from
two of the three domains.
• The PBA consisted of two paper-based assessment booklets: one contained literacy
items and one contained numeracy items. Each booklet contained 20 items for the
participant to complete and each participant completed only one booklet type.
• The reading components were completed by a participant after completing the literacy
or numeracy booklet. Reading components were also completed by a respondent who
failed the CBA Core Stage 2 or the PBA Core.

A–5

EXHIBIT A-1.
PIAAC Prison Study Yield
0.3%
(Missing BQ and
cognitive data)

ICT use from BQ

2.4%
(Missing cognitive data)

No computer experience Some computer experience

Paper
Branch

86.9%

10.4%

CBA- Core
Stage 1: ICT

Fail
4.4%

Pass 60.6%

Refused CBA

CORE
4L + 4N

Pass 18.2%

Fail
0.7%

NUMERACY
20 Tasks

LITERACY
20 Tasks

CBA- Core
Stage 2: 3L + 3N

21.9%

Pass 14.4%

Computer
Branch

Pass
LITERACY
Stage 1 (9 tasks)
Stage 2(11 tasks)

Fail
3.8%

14.9%

READING
COMPONENTS

4.4%

NUMERACY
Stage 1 (9 tasks)
Stage 2(11 tasks)

NUMERACY
Stage 1 (9 tasks)
Stage 2 (11 tasks)
4.1%
5 .1%

PS in TRE

5.1%

16.3%
LITERACY
Stage 1 (9 tasks)
Stage 2(11 tasks)

10.1%

PS in TRE

NOTE: ICT = information and communication technology, BQ = background questionnaire, CBA = computer-based assessment, and PS in TRE = problem
solving in technology-rich environments.

Problem Solving in Technology-Rich Environments: U.S. Sample
The PIAAC assessment design was developed to route respondents to the most appropriate
delivery mode to help assure the most reliable, valid, and comparable assessment of skills.
The computer-based assessment (CBA) was chosen for those demonstrating information
and communication technology (ICT) skills, while the remaining respondents received
the paper-based assessment (PBA). The scores for respondents who had no computer experience, failed the ICT skills test, or refused the CBA did not contribute to the estimation
of the item parameters for the problem solving in technology-rich environments domain.
The design of the PIAAC assessment contained only literacy and numeracy in the PBA
because the problem solving in technology-rich environments assessment, by definition,
was suitable only for respondents familiar with ICT environments. Exhibit A-1 illustrates
the stages of the assessment administration and the weighted percentages of U.S. prison
inmate respondents at each stage of the assessment.

A–6

CBA and PBA
The PIAAC assessment was administered as both a computer-based assessment (CBA) and a
paper-based assessment (PBA). About one-fifth (22 percent) of incarcerated adults declined
to take the CBA compared to 8 percent of adults living in households (table A-2). Sixty-one
percent of incarcerated adults took the PIAAC assessments on a computer, while 81 percent of
adults living in households did so. Compared to adults living in households, incarcerated adults
scored lower across all PIAAC assessment modality characteristics where results are reportable,
with the exception of numeracy scores for test-takers who had no computer experience.

TABLE A-2.
Percentages and average scores of U.S. adults in selected population groups on the PIAAC
literacy and numeracy scales, by PIAAC assessment modalities: 2012 and 2014
Average
literacy score

Percentage
Characteristic
No computer experience
Failed ICT Core stage 1

Average
numeracy score

U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S. Prison Household U.S. Prison Household U.S. Prison Household
11*

221*

198

185

184

‡

233

‡

214

Refused CBA

22*

255*

244

210*

230

Took CBA

61*

254*

280

235*

266

* Significantly different (p < .05) from the comparison category, U.S. Household.
‡ Reporting standards not met.
NOTE: The percentages shown in the table are based on the PIAAC literacy scale. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
U.S. Household data collection occurred in 2012 and 2014, and U.S. Prison data collection occurred in 2014. Results are not shown for
the problem solving in technology-rich environments scale because reporting standards not met.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Program for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC), U.S. National Supplement: Prison Study 2014, U.S. PIAAC 2012/2014.

Weighting and Variance Estimation
For the prison sample, the base weights were created to account for the selection probabilities at the prison level and at the inmate level. Next, the base weights were further
adjusted for nonresponse to the background questionnaire (non-literacy-related and
literacy-related, respectively), and weights for all respondents were calibrated to the
control totals provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The data are weighted such
that the household sample and prison sample each represent their mutually exclusive
target populations, and therefore can be combined together for analysis purposes. For
the prison sample, the weights were adjusted to align with prison population proportions
derived from 2013 estimated totals provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).
The totals provided were estimated by BJS from multiple sources of administrative data
and survey data. The total prison population provided by BJS was about 15 percent more
than the sample total before calibration. Since the prison population provided by BJS
may include inmates in facilities that are out of the scope of the PIAAC prison study, it
was decided to use BJS estimated proportions (in lieu of totals) in the weight calibration
process. More specifically, the control totals were computed by multiplying the sample
total sum of weights before calibration, 1,226,009, by the estimated proportions by
A–7

age, sex, and race from BJS. After calibration, the sample total remained the same, but the
distributions by age, sex, and race matched the proportions provided by BJS. Beyond that,
comparison checks with other BJS estimates were limited due to lack of recent data, different
definitions of variables, and different target populations.
All population and subpopulation characteristics based on the PIAAC data used sampling
weights in their estimation. The statistics presented in this report are estimates of group and
subgroup performance based on a sample of respondents, rather than the values that could
be calculated if every person in the nation answered every question on the instrument.
Therefore, it is important to have measures of the degree of uncertainty of the estimates.
Accordingly, in addition to providing estimates of percentages of respondents and their
average scale scores, this report provides information about the uncertainty of each statistic
in the form of standard errors on the U.S. PIAAC website at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/
piaac/results/summary.aspx.
Because the assessment used clustered sampling, conventional formulas for estimating
sampling variability (e.g., standard errors) that assume simple random sampling and hence
independence of observations would have been inappropriate for this report. For this reason,
the PIAAC assessment used a paired jackknife replication approach (sometimes referred to
as JK2) to estimate standard errors (Rust and Rao 1996).

Scaling
Information on scaling in the PIAAC assessment can be found on the OECD PIAAC
website at http://www.oecd.org/site/piaac/.

Statistical Testing
The statistical comparisons in this report were based on 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. Findings from t-tests are
reported based on a statistical significance (or alpha level) set at .05, without adjustments
for multiple comparisons.

A–8

A P P EN D I X B: PI A AC S C A L ES A N D
P ROFICI EN C Y -L E V EL D ES CR I PT I ON S

This appendix describes in more detail the PIAAC scales and the proficiency-level descriptions
that accompany these scales. PIAAC proficiency results are also reported in terms of the
percentages of adults performing at or “reaching” each of the proficiency levels.

Overview
PIAAC defines four core competency domains of adult cognitive skills that are seen as key to
facilitating the social and economic participation of adults in advanced economies:
• Literacy
• Reading components
• Numeracy
• Problem solving in technology-rich environments
As described in Appendix A, PIAAC is administered in either paper-and-pencil mode or
via computer interface. Literacy and numeracy are offered in both paper-and-pencil and
computer modes. Reading components, which are designed to provide information about
the literacy skills of adults at the lower end of the literacy spectrum, are offered only in
paper-and-pencil mode. Problem solving in technology-rich environments is administered
via computer only.
The OECD oversees the work of several teams of experts in the development of assessment
frameworks in each of the domains. See Appendix C for the list of experts who assisted with
the prison study. Assessment frameworks are available at http://www.oecd.org/site/piaac/
publications.htm. Information about the item development and proficiency level setting
process will be included in a forthcoming PIAAC technical report from OECD.

Literacy
The PIAAC literacy framework expands on the definition of literacy previously used in the
International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS) and the Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey
(ALL). PIAAC broadly defines literacy as “understanding, evaluating, using and engaging with
written text to participate in society, to achieve one’s goals and to develop one’s knowledge and
potential” (OECD 2012).
The purpose of this expanded definition is to highlight the ranges of cognitive processes
involved in literacy, focus on a more active role of individuals in society, and include various
text types, both in print and electronic formats, in the measurement of literacy.

B–1

PIAAC items include continuous texts (e.g., text in sentences and paragraphs), non-continuous
texts (e.g., schedules, graphs, and maps), and electronic texts (including hypertext or text in
interactive environments, such as forms and blogs). Task activities are presented in home, work,
and community contexts, addressing various purposes adults pursue in their everyday lives.
Based on the PIAAC framework, literacy tasks include items in paper-and-pencil and computerbased delivery modes that cover a range of difficulties—low, middle, and high—to present a
comprehensive picture of the level of adult literacy skills in each country or region.

Reading components
The primary goal of the PIAAC reading components is to provide information about the
literacy skills of adults at the lower end of the literacy spectrum—specifically, whether they
have the foundational skills to develop the higher literacy and numeracy abilities necessary
to function in society.
The reading components assessment focuses on elements of reading that are comparable
across the range of languages in the participating countries and regions: reading vocabulary,
sentence comprehension, and basic passage comprehension.
• The reading vocabulary section asks participants to identify the best word that should
be used to label different graphic illustrations. This task measures whether participants
can identify common, concrete print words used in everyday adult interactions in the
community, home, and workplace. It is not meant to determine the vocabulary knowledge (breadth or depth) of the participants.
• The sentence comprehension section asks participants to identify whether sentences of
varying grammatical/syntactic complexity make sense. This task measures whether participants can understand and correctly judge the accuracy of the content of sentences.
• The basic passage comprehension section asks participants to make a choice between a
correct and an incorrect word to complete a sentence within a passage. This task measures whether respondents comprehend text in context and can appropriately use words
in ways that characterize fluency.
The reading component portion of the assessment is optional for countries and regions
participating in PIAAC. In countries and regions that adopt the reading components tasks,
participants who decide not to take the computer-based assessment, and those who fail to pass
the computer-administered information and communication technology (ICT) skills and
literacy/numeracy “Core” items, are directed to the reading components tasks. (Additional
information about the administration of the assessment and the “Core” items can be found
in Appendix A.) Data from the reading components portion of the assessment are not reported
separately in this report, but can be accessed from the International Data Explorer (IDE) at
http://www.oecd.org/site/piaac/publicdataandanalysis.htm.

B–2

EXHIBIT B-1.
Description of PIAAC proficiency levels on the literacy scale

Proficiency levels
and cut scores for
literacy

Literacy task descriptions

Level 5
(376 – 500)

At this level, tasks may require the respondent to search for and integrate information across multiple, dense texts; construct syntheses of similar and contrasting ideas or points of view; or evaluate
evidence-based arguments. Application and evaluation of logical and conceptual models of ideas
may be required to accomplish tasks. Evaluating reliability of evidentiary sources and selecting key
information is frequently a requirement. Tasks often require respondents to be aware of subtle,
rhetorical cues and to make high-level inferences or use specialized background knowledge.

Level 4
(326 – 375)

Tasks at this level often require respondents to perform multiple-step operations to integrate,
interpret, or synthesize information from complex or lengthy continuous, non-continuous, mixed,
or multiple type texts. Complex inferences and application of background knowledge may be
needed to perform the task successfully. Many tasks require identifying and understanding one or
more specific, non-central idea(s) in the text in order to interpret or evaluate subtle evidence-claim
or persuasive discourse relationships. Conditional information is frequently present in tasks at this
level and must be taken into consideration by the respondent. Competing information is present
and sometimes seemingly as prominent as correct information.

Level 3
(276 – 325)

Texts at this level are often dense or lengthy, and include continuous, non-continuous, mixed,
or multiple pages of text. Understanding text and rhetorical structures become more central
to successfully completing tasks, especially navigating complex digital texts. Tasks require the
respondent to identify, interpret, or evaluate one or more pieces of information, and often require
varying levels of inference. Many tasks require the respondent to construct meaning across larger
chunks of text or perform multi-step operations in order to identify and formulate responses. Often
tasks also demand that the respondent disregard irrelevant or inappropriate content to answer
accurately. Competing information is often present, but it is not more prominent than the correct
information.

Level 2
(226 – 275)

At this level, the medium of texts may be digital or printed, and texts may comprise continuous,
non-continuous, or mixed types. Tasks at this level require respondents to make matches between
the text and information, and may require paraphrasing or low-level inferences. Some competing
pieces of information may be present. Some tasks require the respondent to
•

cycle through or integrate two or more pieces of information based on criteria;

•

compare and contrast or reason about information requested in the question; or

•

navigate within digital texts to access and identify information from various parts of a document.

Level 1
(176 – 225)

Most of the tasks at this level require the respondent to read relatively short digital or print continuous, non-continuous, or mixed texts to locate a single piece of information that is identical to
or synonymous with the information given in the question or directive. Some tasks, such as those
involving non-continuous texts, may require the respondent to enter personal information onto a
document. Little, if any, competing information is present. Some tasks may require simple cycling
through more than one piece of information. Knowledge and skill in recognizing basic vocabulary,
determining the meaning of sentences, and reading paragraphs of text is expected.

Below Level 1
(0 – 175)

The tasks at this level require the respondent to read brief texts on familiar topics to locate a
single piece of specific information. There is seldom any competing information in the text and the
requested information is identical in form to information in the question or directive. The respondent may be required to locate information in short continuous texts. However, in this case, the
information can be located as if the text were non-continuous in format. Only basic vocabulary
knowledge is required, and the reader is not required to understand the structure of sentences or
paragraphs or make use of other text features. Tasks below Level 1 do not make use of any features
specific to digital texts.
B–3

EXHIBIT B-2.
Examples of literacy items

Items that exemplify the pertinent features of the proficiency levels in the domain of literacy
are described below. In order to be consistent with the OECD international report, Levels 4
and 5 are combined in the figures in this report (Level 4/5).
Level 4: Library search (Item ID: C323P002)
Difficulty score: 348

The stimulus displays results from a bibliographic search from a simulated library website. The
test-taker is asked to identify a book suggesting that the claims made both for and against genetically modified foods are unreliable. He or she needs to read the title and the description of each
book in each of the entries reporting the results of the bibliographic search in order to identify
the correct book. Many pieces of distracting information are present. The information that the relevant book suggests that the claims for and against genetically modified foods are unreliable must
be inferred from the truncated Internet search result stating that the author “describes how both
sides in this hotly contested debate have manufactured propaganda, tried to dupe the public and...
[text ends with ellipsis as shown].”
Level 3: Library search (Item ID: C323P003)
Difficulty score: 289

This task uses the same stimulus as the previous example. The test-taker is asked to identify
the name of the author of a book called Ecomyth. To complete the task, the test-taker has to
scroll through a list of bibliographic entries and find the name of the author specified under
the book title. In addition to scrolling, the test-taker must be able to access the second page
where Ecomyth is located by either clicking the page number (2) or the word “next.” There
is considerable irrelevant information in each entry to this particular task, which adds to the
complexity of the task.
Level 2: Lakeside fun run (Item ID: C322P002)
Difficulty score: 240

The stimulus is a simulated website containing information about the annual fun run/walk
organized by the Lakeside community club. The test-taker is first directed to a page with several
links, including “Contact Us” and “FAQs.” He or she is then asked to identify the link providing
the phone number of organizers of the event. In order to answer this item correctly, the test-taker
needs to click on the link “Contact Us.” This requires navigating through a digital text and some
understanding of web conventions. While this task might be fairly simple for test-takers familiar
with web-based texts, some respondents less familiar with web-based texts would need to make
some inferences to identify the correct link.

B–4

Level 1: Generic medicine (Item ID: C309A321)
Difficulty score: 219
The stimulus is a short newspaper article entitled “Generic medicines: Not for the Swiss.” It
has two paragraphs and a table in the middle displaying the market share of generic medicines in 14 European countries and the United States. The test-taker is asked to determine
the number of countries in which the generic drug market accounts for 10 percent or more
of total drug sales. The test-taker has to count the number of countries with a market share
greater than 10 percent. The percentages are sorted in descending order to facilitate the search.
The phrase “drug sales,” however, does not appear in the text; therefore, the test-taker needs to
understand that “market share” is a synonym for “drug sales” in order to answer the question.
Below Level 1: Election results (Item ID: C302BC02)
Difficulty score: 162
The stimulus consists of a short report of the results of a union election containing several brief
paragraphs and a simple table identifying the three candidates in the election and the number of
votes they received. The test-taker is asked to identify which candidate received the fewest votes.
He or she needs to compare the number of votes that the three candidates received and identify
the name of the candidate who received the fewest votes. The word “votes” appears in both the
question and in the table and nowhere else in the text.

B–5

Numeracy
The primary goal of PIAAC’s numeracy assessment is to evaluate basic mathematical and
computational skills that are considered fundamental for functioning in everyday work and
social life. Numeracy in the PIAAC framework is defined as “the ability to access, use,
interpret, and communicate mathematical information and ideas, to engage in and manage
mathematical demands of a range of situations in adult life” (OECD 2012).
The PIAAC numeracy domain is built on previous large-scale assessments of this domain,
school-oriented assessments, and a review of requirements of workplace skills, adult learning,
and mathematics and statistics education. The tasks that measure this domain involve managing a situation or solving a problem in a practical context—in home, work, or community
settings. These tasks ask respondents to work with numbers, proportions, measurements,
and statistical concepts, and then call for participants to compute, interpret, and communicate
the results and mathematical content. The situations and problems presented in these tasks
involve objects or pictures, text, numbers, graphs, and technology-based displays. They also
require basic mathematical skills in computation, proportions and percentages, an understanding of measurement concepts and procedures, and working with simple formulas.
Respondents also encounter more complex items that require using models to predict future
needs, and an understanding of basic statistical concepts and displays.
In addition, PIAAC numeracy assessment items
• are set in authentic and culturally appropriate contexts,
• measure different levels of ability, and
• use the standard measuring systems of the participating country or region.
Numeracy tasks include items in paper-and-pencil and computer-based delivery modes that
cover a range of difficulties—low, middle, and high—to present a comprehensive picture of
the level of adult numeracy skills in each country or region.

B–6

EXHIBIT B-3.
Description of PIAAC proficiency levels on the numeracy scale

Proficiency levels
and cut scores for
numeracy

Numeracy task descriptions

Level 5
(376 – 500)

Tasks at this level require the respondent to understand complex representations and abstract and
formal mathematical and statistical ideas, possibly embedded in complex texts. Respondents may have
to integrate multiple types of mathematical information where considerable translation or interpretation is required; draw inferences; develop or work with mathematical arguments or models; and justify,
evaluate and critically reflect upon solutions or choices.

Level 4
(326 – 375)

Tasks at this level require the respondent to understand a broad range of mathematical information
that may be complex, abstract or embedded in unfamiliar contexts. These tasks involve undertaking
multiple steps and choosing relevant problem-solving strategies and processes. Tasks tend to require
analysis and more complex reasoning about quantities and data; statistics and chance; spatial relationships; and change, proportions and formulas. Tasks at this level may also require understanding arguments or communicating well-reasoned explanations for answers or choices.

Level 3
(276 – 325)

Tasks at this level require the respondent to understand mathematical information that may be less
explicit, embedded in contexts that are not always familiar and represented in more complex ways.
Tasks require several steps and may involve the choice of problem-solving strategies and relevant
processes. Tasks tend to require the application of number sense and spatial sense; recognizing and
working with mathematical relationships, patterns, and proportions expressed in verbal or numerical
form; and interpretation and basic analysis of data and statistics in texts, tables and graphs.

Level 2
(226 – 275)

Tasks at this level require the respondent to identify and act on mathematical information and ideas
embedded in a range of common contexts where the mathematical content is fairly explicit or visual
with relatively few distractors. Tasks tend to require the application of two or more steps or processes
involving calculation with whole numbers and common decimals, percents and fractions; simple
measurement and spatial representation; estimation; and interpretation of relatively simple data and
statistics in texts, tables and graphs.

Level 1
(176 – 225)

Tasks at this level require the respondent to carry out basic mathematical processes in common, concrete contexts where the mathematical content is explicit with little text and minimal distractors. Tasks
usually require one-step or simple processes involving counting, sorting, performing basic arithmetic
operations, understanding simple percents such as 50%, and locating and identifying elements of
simple or common graphical or spatial representations.

Below Level 1
(0 – 175)

Tasks at this level require the respondents to carry out simple processes such as counting, sorting,
performing basic arithmetic operations with whole numbers or money, or recognizing common spatial
representations in concrete, familiar contexts where the mathematical content is explicit with little or
no text or distractors.

B–7

EXHIBIT B-4.
Examples of numeracy items

Items that exemplify the pertinent features of the proficiency levels in the domain of
numeracy are described below. In order to be consistent with the OECD international
report, Levels 4 and 5 are combined in the figures in this report (Level 4/5). No items
mapped at Level 5 in numeracy.
Level 4: Education level (Item ID: C632P001)
Difficulty score: 354
The stimulus for this item consists of two stacked-column bar graphs presenting the
distribution of the Mexican population by years of schooling for men and women separately.
The y-axis of each of the graphs is labeled “percentage” with 6 grid lines labeled “0%,” “20%,”
“40%,” “60%,” “80%,” and “100%.” The x-axis is labeled “year” and data are presented for
1960, 1970, 1990, 2000, and 2005. A legend identifies three categories of schooling: “more
than 6 years of schooling,” “up to 6 years of schooling,” and “no schooling.” The test-taker is
asked to approximate what percentage of men in Mexico had more than 6 years of schooling
in 1970, choosing from a pull-down menu that has 10 response categories: “0-10%,”
“10-20%,” and so on.
Level 3: Package (Item ID: C657P001)
Difficulty score: 315
The stimulus for this item consists of an illustration of a box constructed from folded cardboard. The dimensions of the cardboard base are identified. The test-taker is asked to identify
which plan best represents the assembled box out of four plans presented in the stimulus.
Level 2: Logbook (Item ID: C613A520)
Difficulty score: 250
The stimulus for this item consists of a page from a motor vehicle logbook with columns for the
date of the trip (start and finish), the purpose of the trip, the odometer reading (start and finish),
the distance travelled, the date of entry and the driver’s name and signature. For the first date of
travel (June 5), the column for the distance travelled is completed. The instructions inform the
test-taker that “a salesman drives his own car and must keep a record of the miles he travels in a
Motor Vehicle Log. When he travels, his employer pays him $0.35 per mile plus $40.00 per day
for various costs such as meals.” The test-taker is asked to calculate how much he will be paid for
the trip on June 5.

B–8

Level 1: Candles (Item ID: C615A602)
Difficulty score: 221
The stimulus for this item consists of a photo of a box containing tea light candles. The packaging
identifies the product (tea light candles), the number of candles in the box (105 candles), and
its weight. While the packaging partially covers the top layer of candles, it can be seen that the
candles are packed in five rows of seven candles each. The instructions inform the test-taker
that there are 105 candles in a box and asks him or her to calculate how many layers of tea
light candles are packed in the box.
Below Level 1: Price tag (Item ID: C602A501)
Difficulty score: 168
The stimulus for this item consists of four supermarket price tags. These identify the product,
the price per pound, the net weight, the date packed, and the total price. The test-taker is asked
to indicate the item that was packed first by simply comparing the dates on the price tags.

B–9

Problem solving in technology-rich environments
PIAAC represents the first attempt to assess problem solving in technology-rich environments on a large scale and as a single dimension in an international context. PIAAC defines
problem solving in technology-rich environments as “using digital technology, communication
tools, and networks to acquire and evaluate information, communicate with others, and perform
practical tasks” (OECD 2012).
Digital technology has revolutionized access to information and communication capabilities
over the past two decades. In particular, the Internet has increased instantaneous access to
large amounts of information and has expanded instant voice, text, and graphics capabilities
across the globe. In order to effectively operate in these environments, it is necessary to have
• knowledge of how various technological environments are structured (e.g., an
understanding of the basics of the environment, including how to use command names,
drop-down menus, naming protocols for files and folders, and links in a web page); and
• the ability to interact effectively with digital information; understand electronic texts,
images, graphics, and numerical data; and locate, evaluate, and critically judge the
validity, accuracy, and appropriateness of the accessed information.
These skills constitute the core aspects of the problem solving in technology-rich environments domain.
Items in this domain present tasks of varying difficulty in simulated software applications
using commands and functions commonly found in e-mail, web pages, and spreadsheets.
These tasks range from purchasing particular goods or services online and finding interactive
health information to managing personal information and business finances.
PIAAC recognizes the diversity of digital technologies and the fact that they are evolving at
a rapid pace, but due to implementation constraints, the first round of PIAAC was limited
to using computers and simulated computer networks. The tasks assessing problem solving
in technology-rich environments were only administered via computer and therefore only
those taking the computerized assessment received a score in this domain.

B–10

EXHIBIT B-5.
Description of PIAAC proficiency levels on the problem solving in technology-rich environments scale

Proficiency levels
and cut scores
for problem
solving in
technology-rich
environments

Problem solving in technology-rich environments task descriptions

Level 3
(341 – 500)

At this level, tasks typically require the use of both generic and more specific technology applications.
Some navigation across pages and applications is required to solve the problem. The use of tools
(e.g., a sort function) is required to make progress towards the solution. The task may involve multiple
steps and operators. The goal of the problem may have to be defined by the respondent, and the
criteria to be met may or may not be explicit. There are typically high monitoring demands. Unexpected
outcomes and impasses are likely to occur. The task may require evaluating the relevance and reliability
of information in order to discard distractors. Integration and inferential reasoning may be needed to a
large extent.

Level 2
(291 – 340)

At this level, tasks typically require the use of both generic and more specific technology a pplications.
For instance, the respondent may have to make use of a novel online form. Some navigation across
pages and applications is required to solve the problem. The use of tools (e.g., a sort function) can facilitate the resolution of the problem. The task may involve multiple steps and operators. The goal of the
problem may have to be defined by the respondent, though the criteria to be met are explicit. There
are higher monitoring demands. Some unexpected outcomes or impasses may appear. The task may
require evaluating the relevance of a set of items to discard distractors. Some integration and
inferential reasoning may be needed.

Level 1
(241 – 290)

At this level, tasks typically require the use of widely available and familiar technology applications,
such as e-mail software or a web browser. There is little or no navigation required to access the information or commands required to solve the problem. The problem may be solved regardless of the
respondent’s awareness and use of specific tools and functions (e.g., a sort function). The tasks involve
few steps and a minimal number of operators. At the cognitive level, the respondent can readily infer
the goal from the task statement; problem resolution requires the respondent to apply explicit criteria;
and there are few monitoring demands (e.g., the respondent does not have to check whether he or she
has used the appropriate procedure or made progress towards the solution). Identifying content and
operators can be done through simple match. Only simple forms of reasoning, such as assigning items
to categories, are required; there is no need to contrast or integrate information.

Below Level 1
(0 – 240)

Tasks are based on well-defined problems involving the use of only one function within a generic interface to meet one explicit criterion without any categorical or inferential reasoning, or transforming of
information. Few steps are required and no sub-goal has to be generated.

B–11

EXHIBIT B-6.
Examples of problem solving in technology-rich environments items

Items that exemplify the pertinent features of the proficiency levels in the domain of
problem solving in technology-rich environments are described below.
Level 3: Meeting rooms (Item ID: U02)
Difficulty score: 346
This task involves managing requests to reserve a meeting room on a particular date using a reservation system. Upon discovering that one of the reservation requests cannot be accommodated,
the test-taker has to send an e-mail message declining the request. Successfully completing the task
involves taking into account multiple constraints (e.g., the number of rooms available and existing
reservations). Impasses exist, as the initial constraints generate a conflict (one of the demands for
a room reservation cannot be satisfied). The impasse has to be resolved by initiating a new subgoal, i.e., issuing a standard message to decline one of the requests. Two applications are present in
the environment: an e-mail interface with a number of e-mails stored in an inbox containing the
room reservation requests, and a web-based reservation tool that allows the user to assign rooms to
meetings at certain times. The item requires the test-taker to “Use information from a novel web
application and several e-mail messages, establish and apply criteria to solve a scheduling problem
where an impasse must be resolved, and communicate the outcome.” The task involves multiple
applications, a large number of steps, a built-in impasse, and the discovery and use of ad hoc
commands in a novel environment. The test-taker has to establish a plan and monitor its implementation in order to minimize the number of conflicts. In addition, the test-taker has to transfer
information from one application (e-mail) to another (the room-reservation tool).
Level 2: Club membership (Item ID: U19b)
Difficulty score: 296
This task involves responding to a request for information by locating information in a
spreadsheet and e-mailing the requested information to the person who asked for it. The
test-taker is presented with a word-processor page containing a request to identify members
of a bike club who meet two conditions, and a spreadsheet containing 200 entries in which
the relevant information can be found. The required information has to be extracted by
using a sort function. The item requires the test-taker to “Organize large amounts of
information in a multiple-column spreadsheet using multiple explicit criteria and locate
and mark relevant entries.” The task requires switching between two different applications
and involves multiple steps and operators. It also requires some amount of monitoring.
Making use of the available tools greatly facilitates identifying the relevant entries.

B–12

Level 1: Party invitations (Item ID: U01A)
Difficulty score: 286

This task involves sorting e-mails into pre-existing folders. An e-mail interface is presented
with five e-mails in an Inbox. These e-mails are responses to a party invitation. The test-taker
is asked to place the response e-mails into a pre-existing folder to keep track of who can
and cannot attend a party. The item requires the test-taker to “Categorize a small number
of messages in an e-mail application in existing folders according to a single criterion.” The
task is performed in a single and familiar environment and the goal is explicitly stated in
operational terms. Solving the problem requires a relatively small number of steps and the
use of a restricted range of operators and does not demand a significant amount of monitoring
across a large number of actions.

B–13

A P P E N D I X C : MEMBER S OF T HE PI A AC
P RI SON EXPER T G R OUP

Experts in correctional education and policy provided critical input on the relevance and
appropriateness of the background questionnaire items and the overall PIAAC assessment.
Francina Carter is a Correctional Program Specialist in the Community Services Division of the
National Institute of Corrections within the Department of Justice. She is the program manager
of the Offender Workforce Development Specialist (OWDS) partnership training program. Her
primary focus is on providing training and information to help offender employment specialists
in both the public and private sectors with assisting offenders to find and retain employment.
Gary Dennis is a former Senior Policy Advisor for Corrections in the Bureau of Justice
Assistance within the Department of Justice. Dr. Dennis has served various positions in state
government, including Deputy Commissioner, Director of Correctional Industries, Director of
Operations, Director of Corrections Training, and Warden. He has also served as Director of
Management and Training Services at the National Institute of Corrections’ National Academy
of Corrections, and as Interim Facility Executive for the Vermont Department of Corrections.
He is currently an Adjunct Professor at the University of Maryland and an Adjunct Associate
Professor at American University where he teaches courses in criminal justice.
John Linton is the former Director of Correctional Education, Division of Adult Education and
Literacy, Office of Career Technical and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education. Prior
to his federal service, he served the Maryland State Department of Education as director of the
education and library programs in Maryland’s state adult correctional institutions. John trained as a
reading specialist and began his teaching career as an adult education teacher in prison schools.
Jerry McGlone is the retired superintendent for the Ohio adult correctional school district. After
retirement, he spent several years as School Superintendent for the Ohio juvenile justice
system. Previously, he worked as a prison school principal and a teacher in both an adult and
juvenile facility. Dr. McGlone has been a correctional education/administration consultant and
university professor for nearly 40 years. He is active in numerous state and national organizations
in the criminal justice arena, most notably the Correctional Education Association (CEA). In
CEA, he served as President and continues to maintain an active leadership/advisory role.
Stephen Steurer is currently the Reentry/Education Advocate for CURE National, a
non-profit prison reform group. Previously he was the Executive Director of the Correctional
Education Association and simultaneously served as the Correctional Education Academic Coordinator for the Maryland state prison education programs provided through the Maryland
State Department of Education. Dr. Steurer has also worked in the Maryland Department of
Juvenile Services facilities and taught middle and high school in Chicago and Washington,
D.C. public schools.

C–1

www.ed.gov

ies.ed.gov

C–2

Disciplinary Self-Help Litigation Manual - Side