In the wake of the technological revolution that began in the last decades of the 20th century, labour-market demand for information-processing and other high-level cognitive and interpersonal skills have been growing substantially. Based on the results from the 33 countries and regions that participated in the 1st and 2nd round of the Survey of Adult Skills in 2011-12 and in 2014-15, this report describes adults’ proficiency in three information-processing skills, and examines how proficiency is related to labour-market and social outcomes. It also places special emphasis on the results from the 3rd and final round of the first cycle of PIAAC in 2017-18, which included 6 countries (Ecuador, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Peru and the United States). The Survey of Adult Skills, a product of the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), was designed to provide insights into the availability of some of these key skills in society and how they are used at work and at home. The first survey of its kind, it directly measures proficiency in three information-processing skills: literacy, numeracy and problem-solving in technology-rich environments.

1. Andreas Schleicher
Director for Education and Skills
Skills matter
ADDITIONAL RESULTS FROM THE SURVEY OF ADULT SKILLS
1
LOCATION, DATE

2. Survey of Adult Skills in brief
in literacy, numeracy and problem solving
in technology-rich environments.
245 thousand adults…
Representing 1.15 billion 16-65 year-olds in 39
countries/economies
Took an internationally
agreed assessment…
The assessment was administered either in computer-
based or paper-based versions.

3. Survey of Adult Skills
Participating countries
5
2011-12
(**see notes A and B in the Reader’s Guide).

4. 6
(**see notes A and B in the Reader’s Guide).
Survey of Adult Skills
Participating countries
2014-15

5. 7
(**see notes A and B in the Reader’s Guide).
Survey of Adult Skills
Participating countries
2017-18

6. Survey of Adult Skills in brief
Sample sizes ranged from..
a minimum of approximately 4 500 to a
maximum of nearly 27 300.
The survey collected background
information of adults for about 40 minutes.
Respondents with very low literacy
skills were directed to a test of
basic “reading component” skills.
The survey also collects a range of generic skills
such as collaborating with others and organising
one’s time, required of individuals in their work.

7. Literacy
The ability to...
Understand, evaluate, use and engage with written texts.
In order to..
Achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and potential.
Literacy encompasses a range of skills from..
The decoding of written words and sentences
The comprehension, interpretation and evaluation of complex texts.
Numeracy
The ability to…
Access, use, interpret and communicate mathematical information and ideas
In order to..
Engage in and manage the mathematical demands of a range of situations in adults.
Numeracy involves
Managing a situation or solving a problem in a real context, by responding to mathematical
content/information/ideas represented in multiple ways.
Problem Solving
In Technology-rich
Environments
The ability to…
Use digital technology communication tools and networks to acquire and evaluate information,
communicate with others and perform practical tasks.
The assessment focuses on the abilities to…
Solve problems for personal, work and civic purposes by setting up appropriate goals and plans, and
accessing and making use of information through computers and computer networks.
“Key information-processing skills”
Survey of Adult Skills Skills assessed
9

8. Literacy proficiency and GDP per capita
10
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
R² = 0.2928
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000
PIAAC literacy score
GDP per capita in 2017 (2010 constant prices $, PPP)

9. 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Wage High levels of
health
Participation in
volunteer activities
High levels of
political efficacy
High levels of trust
Percentage-point change associated with a change of one standard deviation in proficiency in numeracy (OECD average)
Numeracy and positive outcomes

10. Effect of education, numeracy
proficiency and numeracy use at work on wages
Percentage change in wages associated with a one standard deviation increase in years of education, proficiency in
numeracy and numeracy use at work
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Greece
Ecuador
Italy
Denmark
CzechRepublic
Sweden
Turkey
Finland
Norway
Korea
Mexico
Kazakhstan
Austria
France
Netherlands
Flanders(Belgium)
UnitedStates2017
Poland
Peru
Cyprus¹
Lithuania
Slovenia
OECDaverage
Spain
Estonia
Germany
Australia
NorthernIreland(UK)
Ireland
Japan
NewZealand
Canada
Hungary
SlovakRepublic
Israel
UnitedStates2012/2014
England(UK)
Chile
Singapore
Years of education Proficiency (numeracy) Numeracy at work%
Statistically significant
differences are marked
in a darker tone

11. What can adults do?

12. Description of proficiency levels:
Literacy
14
Adults at Level 1 can
• Read relatively short digital or print continuous, non-continuous, or mixed texts to locate a single piece of
information.
• Complete simple forms, understand basic vocabulary, determine the meaning of sentences, and read
continuous texts with a degree of fluency.
Adults at
Level 1 can
• Integrate two or more pieces of information based on criteria
• Compare and contrast or reason about information and make low-level inferences.
•Read relatively short digital or print continuous, non-continuous, or mixed texts to locate a single piece of
information.
Adults at
Level 2 can
Understand and respond appropriately to dense or lengthy texts.
• Understand text structures and rhetorical devices.
• Identify, interpret, or evaluate one or more pieces of information and make appropriate inferences.
Adults at Level
3 can
• Make complex inferences and appropriately apply background knowledge as well as interpret or
evaluate subtle truth claims or arguments.
•Perform multiple-step operations to integrate, interpret, or synthesise information from complex or
lengthy texts that involve conditional and/or competing information.
Adults at
Level 4/5 can

13. 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80
Ecuador
Peru
Mexico
Turkey
Chile
Kazakhstan
Italy
Greece
Spain
Slovenia
Israel
Cyprus¹
Lithuania
France
Hungary
Singapore
Northern Ireland (UK)
Ireland
Poland
OECD average
United States 2017
Austria
Germany
United States 2012/2014
England (UK)
Korea
Denmark
Czech Republic
Canada
Flanders (Belgium)
Slovak Republic
Russian Federation²
Estonia
Norway
New Zealand
Australia
Sweden
Netherlands
Finland
Japan
Proportion of the population
Level 2
Level 1 and below
Level 3
Level 4/5
Literacy proficiency levels

14. 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300
Score
Kazakhstan
Peru
Literacy skills in younger and
older generations 55-65 to 16-24 years old
Chile
Singapore
Ecuador
Mexico
Germany
Hungary
United States 2017
UK
OECD
55-65
OECD
16-24

15. Literacy proficiency: country average and variation
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[C…
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CEL…
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
190 210 230 250 270 290 310
Interquartile range
Average score

16. Description of proficiency levels:
Numeracy
21
Adults at Level 1 can
• Complete tasks involving basic mathematical processes in common, concrete contexts where the
mathematical content is explicit with little text and minimal distractors.
• Perform simple processes involving counting, sorting, basic arithmetic operations, understanding simple
percent, and locating elements of simple or common graphical or spatial representations.
Adults at
Level 1 can
• Perform tasks that require identifying and acting upon mathematical information and ideas embedded in a
range of common contexts where the mathematical content is fairly explicit or visual with relatively few
distractors.
• Interpret relatively simple data and statistics in texts, tables and graphs.
Adults at
Level 2 can
• Complete tasks that require an understanding of mathematical information that may be less explicit, embedded
in contexts that are not always familiar, and represented in more complex ways.
• Perform tasks requiring several steps and that may involve a choice of problem-solving strategies
and relevant processes.
Adults at Level
3 can
• Understand a broad range of mathematical information that may be complex, abstract or embedded
in unfamiliar contexts.
• Understand arguments and communicate well-reasoned explanations for answers or choices.
Adults at
Level 4/5 can

17. 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80
Ecuador
Peru
Mexico
Chile
Turkey
Kazakhstan
Spain
Italy
Greece
Cyprus¹
United States 2017
Israel
Ireland
United States 2012/2014
France
Northern Ireland (UK)
Poland
Slovenia
England (UK)
Korea
Lithuania
OECD average
Singapore
Canada
Australia
Russian Federation²
New Zealand
Estonia
Germany
Hungary
Austria
Czech Republic
Flanders (Belgium)
Slovak Republic
Denmark
Norway
Netherlands
Sweden
Finland
Japan
Proportion of the population
Level 2
Level 1 and below
Level 3
Level 4/5
Numeracy proficiency levels

18. Low performers in literacy and/or numeracy
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 Ecuador
Peru
Chile
Mexico
Turkey
Italy
Israel
Spain
Greece
Kazakhstan
France
Slovenia
Singapore
UnitedStates2017
UnitedStates…
Ireland
Poland
OECDaverage
NorthernIreland(UK)
England(UK)
Canada
Germany
Hungary
Australia
Lithuania
NewZealand
Korea
Denmark
Austria
RussianFederation²
Cyprus¹
Estonia
Sweden
Flanders(Belgium)
CzechRepublic
Norway
SlovakRepublic
Netherlands
Finland
Japan
in both literacy and numeracy
in literacy only
in numeracy only
At or below Level 1
Proportion of the population

19. Description of proficiency levels:
Problem Solving in Technology-rich environment
25
Adults at Level 1 can
• Adults who either failed ICT core test or had no prior computer experience took the paper-based version of
the assessment.
• Adults who “opted out” of taking computer-based assessment opted to take the paper-based assessment
without first taking the ICT core assessment, even if they reported some prior experience with computers.
Adults who did not
pass the test
• Complete tasks in which the goal is explicitly stated and for which the necessary operations are performed in a
single and familiar environment.
• Solve problems in the context of technology-rich environments whose solutions involve a relatively small
number of steps, and a limited amount of monitoring across a large number of actions
Adults at
Level 1 can
• Complete problems that have explicit criteria for success, a small number of applications, and several steps and
operators.
• Can monitor progress towards a solution and handle unexpected outcomes or impasses.
Adults at Level
2 can
• Complete tasks involving multiple applications, a large number of steps, impasses, and the discovery
and use of ad hoc commands in a novel environment.
• Establish a plan to arrive at a solution and monitor its implementation as they deal with unexpected
outcomes and impasses.
Adults at
Level 3 can

20. 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Ecuador
Peru
Turkey
Mexico
Kazakhstan
Greece
Chile
Poland
Lithuania
Russian Federation²
Slovak Republic
Ireland
Israel
United States 2012/2014
Slovenia
Hungary
Northern Ireland (UK)
United States 2017
OECD average
Estonia
England (UK)
Australia
Korea
Canada
Austria
Czech Republic
Flanders (Belgium)
Germany
Japan
New Zealand
Norway
Netherlands
Denmark
Singapore
Sweden
Finland
55-65 Level 2 55-65 Level 3
Level 2 Level 3
%
Proficient in solving problems in a digital environment – by age
Older adults
(55-65)
Young adults
(25-34)

21. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
New Zealand
Netherlands
Sweden
Norway
United States 2017
Denmark
England (UK)
Flanders (Belgium)
United States 2012/2014
Canada
Germany
Northern Ireland (UK)
Finland
Australia
Lithuania
Singapore
Czech Republic
Slovenia
Austria
OECD average
Kazakhstan
Hungary
Estonia
Korea
Greece
Ireland
Russian Federation²
Slovak Republic
Ecuador
Peru
Turkey
Mexico
Proportion of the population
No computer experience
Opted out of computer-based
assessment
Failed ICT core
Problem solving assesment: Not tried or failed

22. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Peru
Turkey
Mexico
Ecuador
Korea
Chile
Poland
SlovakRepublic
RussianFederation²
Lithuania
Greece
Slovenia
Singapore
Kazakhstan
Japan
NorthernIreland(UK)
Hungary
Austria
Ireland
Estonia
OECDaverage
CzechRepublic
Germany
Israel
Flanders(Belgium)
Canada
England(UK)
Finland
Australia
UnitedStates2012/2014
Netherlands
Norway
Denmark
UnitedStates2017
NewZealand
Sweden
55-65 25-34
Score
Proficiency in PSTRE by age:
Failed ICT core or no computer experience

23. PROFICIENCY IN INFORMATION PROCESSING SKILLS AND
SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
Information processing skills are closely related to socio-
demographic characteristics such as:
• educational attainment
• age
• parental education
• Immigrant background
• and gender

24. Literacy and socio-demographic
characteristics: a summary – OECD average
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Native-born and native-language
minus foreign-born and foreign-language
25-34 year-olds - 55-65 year-olds
Tertiary - Less than upper secondary
(adults aged 25-65)
At least one parent attained tertiary -
Neither parent attained upper secondary
Men - Women
Differences in literacy score
Age
Educational
Attainment
Parents’
education
Gender
Score
Immigrant
background

25. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AND PROFICIENCY
Literacy proficiency is strongly related to educational
attainment.
• Adults with higher levels of education tend to have higher proficiency
• There are considerable differences between countries in the average
literacy proficiency of adults with educational qualifications at similar
levels

26. 150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
310
330
Japan
Netherlands
Finland
Sweden
Australia
CzechRepublic
Flanders(Belgium)
Norway
UnitedStates2012/2014
NewZealand
Poland
Austria
England(UK)
NorthernIreland(UK)
UnitedStates2017
Hungary
SlovakRepublic
France
Germany
Denmark
Ireland
OECDaverage
Korea
Canada
Estonia
Singapore
Slovenia
Lithuania
Cyprus¹
Spain
Italy
RussianFederation²
Israel
Greece
Turkey
Kazakhstan
Mexico
Chile
Peru
Ecuador
Less than upper secondary Upper secondary Tertiary
Literacy proficiency by level
of educational attainment (25-65 year olds):
Score

27. 36
100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400
Lower than upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
United
States
2017
Score
25th
percentile
Mean 75th
percentile
Lower than upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400
Finland
Score
Mean literacy proficiency and distribution
of literacy scores, by educational attainment
(25-65 year-olds)
Level 1 and below Level 2
OECD average

28. FROM PISA TO PIAAC
The cohorts participating in PISA in 2000-2009 form part
of the PIAAC sample.
• A positive relationship exists between countries’
performance in a given round of PISA and the
proficiency of the corresponding age cohort in PIAAC
some years later.
• This emphasises the importance of good quality
schooling in improving the overall skill level of the
population in the long-run.

29. Mean numeracy proficiency in PISA
and in the Survey of Adult Skills:
PIAAC (PISA 2006 cohorts) and PISA 2006
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELL…[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
R² = 0.5138
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560
PIAAC numeracy score
PISA 2006 mathematics score

30. PROFICIENCY AND AGE
Proficiency is closely related to age
• On average, proficiency is highest among adults aged around 30 years and is
lowest among adults aged 60-65.
• Proficiency tends to increase with age between the ages of 16 and 30-34
years
• There are considerable variations in the age proficiency profiles between
countries. These are likely to reflect the different historical patterns of
educational expansion over time as well as changes in educational policies and
quality between and within countries
• The observed age-proficiency profiles are consistent with evidence regarding
loss of cognitive ability with increasing age.

31. 150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Score
Age
OECD literacy Mexico literacy
OECD numeracy Mexico numeracy
Skill proficiency and age: Mexico

32. GENDER AND PROFICIENCY
• In most countries, the difference between the literacy
proficiency of men and women is negligible with a slight
advantage for men.
• In numeracy, the advantage for men over women is
more marked.
• In problem solving in TRE, differences between men and
women are negligible with a slight advantage for men in
some countries
• Men’s advantage tends to increase with age.

33. Literacy score differences between
men and women
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Turkey
Chile
Germany
Netherlands
Flanders(Belgium)
Peru
Norway
Canada
UnitedStates2012/2014
Singapore
England(UK)
NorthernIreland(UK)
Australia
Sweden
Austria
NewZealand
Spain
Japan
Ireland
Israel
OECDaverage
Mexico
France
Italy
Denmark
Korea
Finland
Ecuador
CzechRepublic
UnitedStates2017
Cyprus¹
Greece
Estonia
Slovenia
Hungary
SlovakRepublic
Poland
Lithuania
Kazakhstan
RussianFederation²
Literacy (men - women) Numeracy (men - women)
Advantage to women
Advantage to men

34. -15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Israel
RussianFederation²
Italy
Slovenia
Estonia
Poland
Denmark
Lithuania
Greece
UnitedStates2012/2014
Cyprus¹
NewZealand
Singapore
France
Chile
Australia
Flanders(Belgium)
Hungary
OECDaverage
Canada
SlovakRepublic
Netherlands
Finland
Sweden
Norway
Austria
Ecuador
UnitedStates2017
Peru
Kazakhstan
Korea
Ireland
Spain
Mexico
Turkey
Japan
England(UK)
Germany
CzechRepublic
NorthernIreland(UK)
25-44 24 or less 45-65
Difference in literacy
proficiency among men and women by age
Advantage to men
Advantage to women

35. PROFICIENCY AND IMMIGRATION BACKGROUND
• In most, though not all, countries, native born adults
tend to score higher in all the domains assessed than
adults born in a country other than their country of
residence.
• With a few exceptions, immigrants who have lived in
their country of residence for 5 years or more tend to
score better than recent immigrants.

36. 150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
NewZealand
Hungary
RussianFederation²
SlovakRepublic
NorthernIreland(UK)
CzechRepublic
Ireland
Cyprus¹
Finland
Canada
England(UK)
Estonia
Norway
Singapore
Lithuania
UnitedStates2017
OECDaverage
Greece
Netherlands
Kazakhstan
Austria
Israel
Sweden
Flanders(Belgium)
Germany
Korea
UnitedStates2012/2014
Denmark
Spain
Slovenia
Italy
France
Chile
In host country 5 or fewer years
In host country more than 5 yearsScore
Literacy proficiency among immigrants:
length of stay in the country

37. PARENTAL EDUCATION AND PROFICIENCY
• In all countries, there is a positive relationship between
proficiency in literacy and numeracy and the
educational attainment of parents
• The strength of the relationship varies considerably
between countries

38. Literacy proficiency by parental education
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
Ecuador
Peru
Chile
Mexico
Kazakhstan
Turkey
Greece
Cyprus¹
Israel
RussianFederation²
Lithuania
Spain
Italy
UnitedStates2017
Slovenia
Ireland
Canada
Austria
OECDaverage
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
UnitedStates2012/2014
Hungary
Korea
CzechRepublic
Norway
SlovakRepublic
France
Singapore
Poland
NorthernIreland(UK)
England(UK)
Sweden
NewZealand
Flanders(Belgium)
Australia
Netherlands
Japan
Finland
Neither parent has attained upper secondary At least one parent has attained tertiary

39. Training
Access to education and training, both general and job-related in positively related to
literacy proficiency
• Adults with higher levels of literacy tend to have higher participation rates
• Norway and New Zealand stand out as countries in which access by adults with low
levels of literacy is highest

40. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Singapore
Denmark
Chile
Finland
Sweden
UnitedStates2012/2014
NewZealand
Israel
Netherlands
Canada
UnitedStates2017
Germany
Spain
Slovenia
Australia
Norway
Korea
Estonia
Peru
England(UK)
Ireland
NorthernIreland(UK)
Austria
OECDaverage
CzechRepublic
Mexico
Hungary
Flanders(Belgium)
Poland
France
Lithuania
SlovakRepublic
Italy
Japan
Cyprus¹
Turkey
Greece
Kazakhstan
RussianFederation²
Ecuador
Below level 1 and Level 1 Level 4 and 5%
Participation in all education and
training, by literacy level (Adults aged 25-65 years)

41. The intensity of use of information processing skills
• The intensity of use of information-processing skills varies between
countries
• The intensity of the use of information processing skills is related to
individual characteristics such as proficiency in literacy and
numeracy, age, and educational attainment
• Countries rank differently on the two dimensions of skills
proficiency and skills use.
• The intensity of numeracy at work is closely related to labour market
outcomes (employment, wages etc)

42. Engagement in numeracy practices
in everyday life and numeracy score
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELL…
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
R² = 0.2211
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
310
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70
Numeracy proficiency
Index of numeracy practices
OECD average
OECD average

43. Engagement in numeracy practices
at work and numeracy score
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELL…
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
R² = 0.278
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
310
0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65
Numeracy proficiency
Index of numeracy practices
OECD average
OECD average

44. Determinants of engagement in numeracy
practices in everyday life: OECD
OLS coefficients
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
55-65 year-olds
16-24 year-olds
Men
Lower than upper secondary
Tertiary education
Literacy proficiency
Numeracy proficiency
Workers
Students
Unemployed
and inactive
%

45. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Reading
Writing
Numeracy
ICT
Problemsolving
Firm size Occupation Industry High-performace work practices Skill proficiency Country fixed effects
% of variance explained
Explaining information-processing skills used
at work

46. 0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Peru
SlovakRepublic
Lithuania
Mexico
Turkey
Greece
Japan
Germany
Ecuador
Slovenia
Chile
Spain
Kazakhstan
Cyprus¹
Hungary
Italy
Poland
France
RussianFederation²
OECDaverage
CzechRepublic
Austria
Israel
Korea
Estonia
Ireland
Flanders(Belgium)
Canada
Singapore
NorthernIreland(UK)
Netherlands
Denmark
UnitedStates2017
England(UK)
UnitedStates2012/2014
Australia
Sweden
Finland
NewZealand
Norway
High likelihood of automation (>70%) Significant likelihood of automation (50-70%)
Percentage of workers
Likelihood of automation or significant
change to jobs

47. Labour market and social outcomes
• Better skilled workers are more likely to be employed (in some
countries), earn higher wages (in most countries) and have better
social outcomes (in most countries).
• Workers who use their skills more frequently are also more likely to
earn higher wages
• Workers are mismatched if their skills do not match the job’s
requirements
• A large share of workers is mismatched by qualifications, by literacy
proficiency or by field-of-study
• Only workers mismatched by qualifications suffer a wage penalty

48. Effect of education and numeracy
proficiency on the likelihood of being employed
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
RussianFederation²
Peru
Singapore
Flanders(Belgium)
Austria
Ecuador
Mexico
Japan
UnitedStates2017
Israel
Greece
Korea
Kazakhstan
Slovenia
Australia
Poland
Hungary
Norway
France
Chile
Netherlands
Denmark
Canada
OECDaverage
Turkey
Finland
Ireland
Estonia
NorthernIreland(UK)
CzechRepublic
Germany
Cyprus¹
Sweden
NewZealand
UnitedStates2012/2014
England(UK)
Italy
Lithuania
SlovakRepublic
Spain
Years of education Numeracy score
Statistically significant
differences are marked in a
darker tone
Percentage-point change
Marginal effects of a one standard deviation increase in years education and numeracy on the
likelihood of being employed among adults not in formal education

49. Effect of education, numeracy
proficiency and numeracy use at work on wages
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Greece
Ecuador
Italy
Denmark
CzechRepublic
Sweden
Turkey
Finland
Norway
Korea
Mexico
Kazakhstan
Austria
France
Netherlands
Flanders(Belgium)
UnitedStates2017
Poland
Peru
Cyprus¹
Lithuania
Slovenia
OECDaverage
Spain
Estonia
Germany
Australia
NorthernIreland(UK)
Ireland
Japan
NewZealand
Canada
Hungary
SlovakRepublic
Israel
UnitedStates2012/2014
England(UK)
Chile
Singapore
Years of education Numeracy Numeracy at work
Statistically
significant
differences are
marked in a
darker tone
%
Percentage change in wages associated with a one standard deviation increase in years of education,
proficiency in numeracy and numeracy use at work

50. 02040 Qualification mismatch%
02040
Literacy mismatch
%
02040
SlovakRepublic
Slovenia
Turkey
Poland
Mexico
Denmark
CzechRepublic
Flanders…
Peru
Singapore
Finland
Spain
USA2017
Cyprus¹
Korea
Hungary
Netherlands
USA2012/2014
Chile
Greece
Kazakhstan
OECDaverage
Germany
Norway
Austria
Italy
Ecuador
Lithuania
Northern…
Russian…
Estonia
Japan
Sweden
Canada
Israel
Australia
Field-of-study mismatch
%
Mismatched (over) Mismatched (under) Total mismatch
Mismatch (percent of workers)

51. Effect of qualification, numeracy
and field-of-study mismatch on wages
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
UnitedStates2017
Israel
Peru
Turkey
Singapore
Canada
Japan
UnitedStates2012/2014
Ireland
NorthernIreland(UK)
Estonia
Cyprus¹
Mexico
England(UK)
Poland
Kazakhstan
Spain
Chile
Korea
Greece
Netherlands
OECDaverage
Slovenia
Lithuania
Denmark
NewZealand
Hungary
Germany
France
CzechRepublic
Finland
Norway
SlovakRepublic
Austria
Sweden
Flanders(Belgium)
Italy
Ecuador
Over-qualified Over-skilled Field of stud mismatched
Statistically significant differences
are marked in a darker tone
%
Percentage difference in wages between overqualified, overskilled or field-of-study mismatched workers
and their well-matched counterparts

52. Data products
Data Explorer
Public Use Files (all countries except Australia)
Background Questionnaire
Codebook
SAS and STATA tools
IEA Data Analyser
Technical Report
Education and Skills On-line

53. Find Out More About PIAAC at:
www.oecd.org/site/piaac
All national and international
publications
The complete micro-level database
Email
edu.piaac@oecd.org
Thank you