Liechtenstein vs Mexico: PISA: Female 15-year-olds by reading proficiency level (%). Level 2
PISA: Female 15-year-olds by reading proficiency level (%). Level 2 over time
- Liechtenstein
- Mexico
How they compare
Liechtenstein currently reports 20.1% against 17.0% in Mexico, a difference of 3.1%.
That makes Liechtenstein's figure about 1.2 times Mexico's.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 5 shared years of data; in 2000 it was Liechtenstein ahead.
Liechtenstein ranks 1st and Mexico ranks 3rd of 55 countries.
Liechtenstein has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Liechtenstein | Mexico | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 19.4% | 16.0% | 3.4% | Liechtenstein |
| 2010s | 20.1% | 19.0% | 1.1% | Liechtenstein |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher pisa: female 15-year-olds by reading proficiency level (%). level 2, Liechtenstein or Mexico?
- Liechtenstein, at 20.1% against 17.0% in Mexico as of 2012.
- What is the difference in pisa: female 15-year-olds by reading proficiency level (%). level 2 between Liechtenstein and Mexico?
- 3.1%, with Liechtenstein ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Liechtenstein and Mexico?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2000 to 2012.
- How do Liechtenstein and Mexico rank globally for pisa: female 15-year-olds by reading proficiency level (%). level 2?
- Liechtenstein ranks 1st and Mexico ranks 3rd of 55 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), published as PISA: Female 15-year-olds by reading proficiency level (%). Level 2. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Percentage of 15-year-old female students scoring higher than 407 but lower than or equal to 480 on the PISA reading scale. Readers at Level 2 can identify the main idea in a piece of text of moderate length. They can understand relationships or construe meaning within a limited part of the text when the information is not prominent by producing basic inferences, and/or when the text(s) include some distracting information. They can select and access a page in a set based on explicit though sometimes complex prompts, and locate one or more pieces of information based on multiple, partly implicit criteria. Readers at Level 2 can, when explicitly cued, reflect on the overall purpose, or on the purpose of specific details, in texts of moderate length. They can reflect on simple visual or typographical features. They can compare claims and evaluate the reasons supporting them based on short, explicit statements. Tasks at Level 2 may involve comparisons or contrasts based on a single feature in the text. Typical reflective tasks at this level require readers to make a comparison or several connections between the text and outside knowledge by drawing on personal experience and attitudes. 2000, 2003, and 2006 PISA assessments used a different reading proficiency scale (Levels 1 to 5) than later assessments. PISA 2000/2003/2006 Level 2 data have been included in this database as Level 2 because they are based on an identical score range. Use caution in comparing proficiency scores across years. For more information on comparability of results, consult the PISA website: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/