↓ Skip to main content

A Review about Functional Illiteracy: Definition, Cognitive, Linguistic, and Numerical Aspects

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
28 X users
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
211 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Review about Functional Illiteracy: Definition, Cognitive, Linguistic, and Numerical Aspects
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01617
Pubmed ID
Authors

Réka Vágvölgyi, Andra Coldea, Thomas Dresler, Josef Schrader, Hans-Christoph Nuerk

Abstract

Formally, availability of education for children has increased around the world over the last decades. However, despite having a successful formal education career, adults can become functional illiterates. Functional illiteracy means that a person cannot use reading, writing, and calculation skills for his/her own and the community's development. Functional illiteracy has considerable negative effects not only on personal development, but also in economic and social terms. Although functional illiteracy has been highly publicized in mass media in the recent years, there is limited scientific knowledge about the people termed functional illiterates; definition, assessment, and differential diagnoses with respect to related numerical and linguistic impairments are rarely studied and controversial. The first goal of our review is to give a comprehensive overview of the research on functional illiteracy by describing gaps in knowledge within the field and to outline and address the basic questions concerning who can be considered as functional illiterates: (1) Do they possess basic skills? (2) In which abilities do they have the largest deficits? (3) Are numerical and linguistic deficits related? (4) What is the fundamental reason for their difficulties? (5) Are there main differences between functional illiterates, illiterates, and dyslexics? We will see that despite partial evidence, there is still much research needed to answer these questions. Secondly, we emphasize the timeliness for a new and more precise definition that results in uniform sampling, better diagnosis, conclusion, and intervention. We propose the following working definition as the result of the review: functional illiteracy is the incapability to understand complex texts despite adequate schooling, age, language skills, elementary reading skills, and IQ. These inabilities must also not be fully explained by sensory, domain-general cognitive, neurological or mental disorders. In sum, we suggest that functional illiteracy must be more thoroughly understood and assessed from a theoretical, empirical, and diagnostic perspective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 211 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 211 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 14%
Student > Bachelor 27 13%
Student > Master 26 12%
Researcher 17 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 5%
Other 37 18%
Unknown 64 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 14%
Social Sciences 23 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 6%
Computer Science 12 6%
Linguistics 11 5%
Other 55 26%
Unknown 68 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 80. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 March 2024.
All research outputs
#545,554
of 25,791,495 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,142
of 34,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,303
of 320,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#16
of 436 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,791,495 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,791 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,039 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 436 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.