Hungary vs Lithuania: PISA: Female 15-year-olds by reading proficiency level (%). Level 4
PISA: Female 15-year-olds by reading proficiency level (%). Level 4 over time
- Hungary
- Lithuania
How they compare
Hungary currently reports 10.0% against 10.0% in Lithuania, a difference of 0.0%.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 5 shared years of data; in 2006 it was Hungary ahead.
Hungary ranks 26th and Lithuania ranks 26th of 55 countries.
Hungary has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Hungary | Lithuania | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 12.0% | 10.0% | 2.0% | Hungary |
| 2010s | 11.0% | 10.3% | 0.7% | Hungary |
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 4, Hungary or Lithuania?
- Hungary, at 10.0% against 10.0% in Lithuania as of 2018.
- What is the difference in pisa: female 15-year-olds by reading proficiency level (%). level 4 between Hungary and Lithuania?
- 0.0%, with Hungary ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hungary and Lithuania?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2006 to 2018.
- How do Hungary and Lithuania rank globally for pisa: female 15-year-olds by reading proficiency level (%). level 4?
- Hungary ranks 26th and Lithuania ranks 26th 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 4. 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 553 but lower than or equal to 626 on the PISA reading scale. At Level 4, readers can comprehend extended passages in single or multiple-text settings. They interpret the meaning of nuances of language in a section of text by taking into account the text as a whole. In other interpretative tasks, students demonstrate understanding and application of ad hoc categories. They can compare perspectives and draw inferences based on multiple sources. Readers can search, locate and integrate several pieces of embedded information in the presence of plausible distractors. They can generate inferences based on the task statement in order to assess the relevance of target information. They can handle tasks that require them to memories prior task context. In addition, students at this level can evaluate the relationship between specific statements and a person’s overall stance or conclusion about a topic. They can reflect on the strategies that authors use to convey their points, based on salient features of texts (e.g., titles and illustrations). They can compare and contrast claims explicitly made in several texts and assess the reliability of a source based on salient criteria. Texts at Level 4 are often long or complex, and their content or form may not be standard. Many of the tasks are situated in multiple-text settings. The texts and the tasks contain indirect or implicit cues. 2000, 2003, and 2006 PISA assessments used a different reading proficiency scale (Levels 1 to 5). PISA 2000/2003/2006 Level 4 data have been included in this database as Level 4 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/