PISA meets PIAAC: Insights from integrated analysis and cross-study interpretation

2026-06-03T16:16:59+03:00

Session room:

From School to Work: Helping Policymakers Interpret PISA and PIAAC Results Together
Anja Meierkord, OECD, France
Francesco Avvisati, OECD, France

This paper discusses a question of central relevance to education, skills and employment policymakers: how should results from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) be read in conjunction? Its core objective is to provide policymakers with a more rigorous and nuanced framework for interpreting both assessments together, so that international skill data can more effectively inform decisions about education systems, vocational pathways, adult learning, and workforce development.The analysis is based on a comparison of cross-sectional data from PIAAC Cycle 2 and multiple PISA Cycles. It uses sample restrictions and pseudo-cohort approaches to identify the degree to which country-level performance in adolescence is associated with adult skill outcomes.Across multiple analytical perspectives, PISA and PIAAC results paint a broadly coherent picture of countries' relative skill performance, in particular when PIAAC data are restricted to young adults close in age to PISA participants and when recently arrived migrants are excluded from the comparison. The alignment is strongest in mathematics and numeracy. This consistency suggests that both assessments capture a common underlying construct of cognitive skill that persists across different testing conditions and methodologies and reinforces confidence that both instruments provide reliable signals of national skill levels.However, meaningful differences remain. Several countries perform better or worse in PIAAC than would be predicted based on their PISA performance. The strength of association between the two assessments also declines as the time elapsed between them increases, suggesting that the influence of initial schooling becomes progressively harder to isolate as adult experiences diversify. For policymakers, this underscores the importance of sustained investment in learning opportunities beyond compulsory education.Methodological differences between the two surveys - including between school-based and household setting, motivational conditions, and questionnaire structures - introduce sources of variability that policymakers should be aware of when interpreting apparent discrepancies. Not all differences between PISA and PIAAC results reflect genuine changes in skill levels; some are attributable to design features of the assessments themselves.Looking ahead, the OECD is exploring ways to strengthen the methodological alignment between PISA and PIAAC, with the aim of enabling more precise inferences about lifelong skill development. Such developments would significantly enhance the analytical value of both programmes and their collective contribution to evidence-based skills policy.

Relationship between literacy at age 15–16 and literacy, education, and employment at age 28–30
Vibeke Jakobsen, VIVE – The Danish Center for Social Science Research, Denmark
Christian Mikkelsen, VIVE – The Danish Center for Social Science Research, Denmark
Johannes Kroustrup, VIVE – The Danish Center for Social Science Research, Denmark

Using combined PISA-PIAAC-data we address the following questions:
• How are young people's reading skills at age 15–16 (measured by PISA) related to their reading skills at age 28–30 (measured by PIAAC)?
• What is the relationship between reading skills at age 15–16 and the likelihood of being employed or in education at age 28–30?
• What characterizes the young people who improve or worsen their position in the skill distribution over time?

The analysis draws on data from PISA and PIAAC, two large-scale international assessments of literacy. Individuals who participated in PISA-2009 were included in the sample for PIAAC Cycle 2. This means that for a group of individuals, proficiency in literacy is measured both when they were 15-16 years old and when they were 28-29 years old. About 1200 respondents from PISA-2009 participated in PIAAC-2022/2023. The PISA-PIAAC data are combined with administrative register data on education, employment and income for the period 2009-2023.
The measurement scales used in PISA and PIAAC have not been designed to be linked psychometrically, and direct comparisons of the level of literacy in PISA and PIAAC, is not advisable. One method we use is to divide the respondents into three groups in 2009 and 2022/2023 respectively, using tertiles, and examine, for example, how the young people who are in the lowest part of the distribution in 2009 are placed in the distribution in 2022/2023.The findings indicate a fairly clear relationship between reading performance at age 15–16 and outcomes later in life. For example, many of those with the weakest reading skills in PISA are also those who score lowest in the PIAAC assessments 14 years later. Moreover, reading skills at age 15–16 are strongly associated with later-life outcomes in education, employment, and self-rated health. Among individuals with the lowest PISA reading skills, 39 percent have completed or are enrolled in higher education 14 years later. By comparison, this applies to 84 percent of those with the strongest reading skills. The proportion receiving transfer income (excluding student grants) at some point between the PISA and PIAAC assessments is markedly higher among low-performing individuals than among high-performing individuals (80 percent versus 62 percent). The development in reading skills from age 15 to the late twenties varies by gender, origin and level of education. For example, immigrants and descendants of immigrants have experienced less positive development in reading skills than individuals of Danish origin from PISA to PIAAC. Young people who pursue higher education—especially long-cycle higher education—have also experienced more positive development in reading skills than those with only compulsory schooling or a vocational education.

Are Teachers Getting Smarter? InternationalEvidence on Changes in Teacher CognitiveSkills and Student Achievement
Sebastian Reinartz, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH), Germany
Eric A Hanushek, Stanford University, USA
Andreas Schleicher, OECD, France
Simon Wiederhold, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH), Germany

Teacher cognitive skills shifted notably over the last decade. Using PIAAC Cycles 1-–2 for 25 countries, we document how the level, dispersion, and relative standing of teachers’ numeracy and literacy evolved within countries. The descriptive evidence reveals large heterogeneity: some countries saw teacher-skill declines of about one standard deviation, while others improved; and teachers’ position within the tertiary-educated workforce moved by 15+ percentile ranks in several countries—consistent with substantial changes in selection into teaching. We then ask which policies and labor-market conditions (e.g., relative teacher wages, outside options for high-skilled women, and teacher status) are associated with these shifts. In a
second step, we relate these country-level changes in teacher skills to changes in student achievement using rich PISA microdata in mathematics and reading. For identification, we exploit within-country variation across subjects and over time, testing whether students in countries where teachers gained in numeracy relative to literacy also improved more in math relative to reading. Data on subject-specific skills in PIAAC for the overall population and for detailed occupations enables a set of robustness checks and placebo tests that help separate changes in teacher skills from broader skill changes within countries. Understanding how and why teacher skills evolve internationally—and whether these changes translate into
student achievement—matters for policies aimed at strengthening teacher quality and improving educational outcomes.

Parallel session E

PISA meets PIAAC: Insights from integrated analysis and cross-study interpretation