In today's knowledge-based and technologically advanced societies, literacy (i.e.

,
the ability to understand, use, and interpret written text) and numeracy (i.e., the
ability to access, use, and interpret mathematical information) are quintessential
skills1 for the welfare and well-being of individuals and societies. Literacy and
numeracy are linked to individual-level outcomes such as income, health, and social
participation as well as and macro-level outcomes such as economic growth
((Hanushek et al., 2015; Hanushek & Woessmann, 2015; OECD, 2016).
Demographic aging and technological advances in industrialized societies imply that
adults will be increasingly required to update their skills throughout the life
course. Literacy and numeracy are key prerequisites to acquiring many forms of
knowledge and skills (e.g., reading a machine's manual, programming a computer, or
learning a foreign language), and hence for lifelong learning at large. Because not
all individuals attain sufficient levels of literacy during schooling age (Durda et
al., 2020; Wicht et al., 2021; Wolf & Jenkins, 2014), a key question is whether
literacy and numeracy skills can still change during adulthood;and if so, whether
change would involve only losses—or proficiency gains at least in some adults?
Moreover, how is skill change distributed in the population and in socio-
demographic subgroups? Potential losses in skills over time in at least some adults
might explain why many adult surveys such as PIAAC or LEO find substantial shares
of adults with low competences despite these adults having completed 9 or more
years of schooling or vocational qualifications (Durda et al., 2020; Grotlüschen et
al., 2016, 2020).
These questions are not only interesting research questions that are relevant to
theories of cognitive ageing and intelligence. They are also relevant to
policymakers and practitioners interested in promoting lifelong learning (e.g.,
Wolf & Jenkins, 2014). For example, if literacy and numeracy were impervious to
change during adulthood, basic skills or workplace learning programs aimed at
fostering literacy and numeracy might have a low return on investment. Childhood
might then be a more promising life stage for interventions (e.g., Cunha & Heckman,
2007). Moreover, literacy and numeracy may change over time, but gains and losses
may be unevenly distributed across (groups of) individuals. Such findings may help
identify segments of the population who are at a heightened risk of experiencing
skill loss (e.g., older adults or the lower-educated). These segments may need
support from policymakers and practitioners, such as by providing them access to
resources and skill programs. Thus, a better understanding of stability and change
of literacy and numeracy skills in adulthood may aid the development of targeted
policies and interventions in the future.
1.1.1. Theoretical perspectives on skill development in adulthood
Prominent theoretical perspectives on skill development in adulthood agree that
skills are characterized by lifelong plasticity. However, they differ in their
predictions as to when skill change may occur and for whom and whether it involves
gains or losses.
In his seminal work, Cattell (1971) hypothesized that “fluid intelligence” (Gf; the
ability to process novel information) and “crystallized intelligence” (Gc; the
totality of acquired knowledge and skills) follow different age trajectories. He
posited that Gf—largely innate and dependent on biological functioning—starts to
decline after the second life decade. In turn, Gc—which results from the investment
of Gf in different subject areas and is influenced by education, experience, and
culture—continues to increase across adulthood and declines only in very old age.
Later research on cognitive aging confirmed and expanded his ideas. For example,
Baltes (1993) distinguished between cognitive mechanics (comparable to Gf) and
cognitive pragmatics (comparable to Gc). He, too, assumed that cognitive pragmatics
reflect the impact of culture and learning and would remain stable until old age.
Literacy and numeracy as measured in our present study are conceptualized as skills
that are acquired through education and practice in different contexts.
As acquired skills, they resemble the conception of Gc or cognitive pragmatics in
Cattell's and Baltes's work. The definitions of literacy and numeracy in these
surveys also overlaps with reading and writing ability (Grw)2 and quantitative
knowledge (Gq), respectively, in the updated Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model of
intelligence, a prominent models of the structure of intelligence (McGrew, 2009).
The CHC model, too, classifies Grw and Gq as largely acquired abilities. Hence,
based on these theories, it can be expected that literacy and numeracy skills
remain largely stable or even increase across adulthood—until perhaps very old age,
when physical aging and limitations lead to declines even in acquired skills.

1.1.2. Previous evidence on age differences in literacy and numeracy

Existing evidence on age differences in literacy and numeracy generally support the
theoretical perspectives outlined above (for reviews, see Desjardins & Warnke,
2012; Paccagnella, 2016; also see Deary, 2014), demonstrating, in particular, (1)
the lifelong plasticity of skills, (2) life-stage dependency of change, and (3)
individual and subgroup differences in skill change.
First, literacy and numeracy appear to continue to develop across adulthood.
Despite the fact that literacy (and likely also numeracy skills) have a genetic
component [i.e., are heritable; Andreola et al., 2020],both cross-sectional and the
few available longitudinal studies suggest that these skills are not “set like
plaster” after childhood but continue to change across the lifespan (Desjardins &
Warnke, 2012; OECD, 2016; Paccagnella, 2016).
Second, although skill change during adulthood may involve both gains and losses,
gains and losses typically occur at different ages. As studies using data from
international large-scale comparisons such as the Programme for the International
Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) show, the cross-sectional age profile of
literacy and numeracy follows an inverted U-shape: Literacy and numeracy skills
"increase" (cross-sectionally) with age throughout the second decade of life, peak
at around an age of 30 years, and gradually "decline" thereafter (e.g.,Gabrielsen &
Lundetræ, 2014; OECD, 2016; Paccagnella, 2016; Podolskiy & Popov, 2014). The cross-
sectional age differences in skills are substantial: On average across
participating countries, older adults (aged 55–65 years) score about 30 scale
points lower on the PIAAC literacy scale (the equivalent of 0.8 SD) than young
adults aged 25–34 years (Paccagnella, 2016).
Interestingly, the age trajectories of literacy and numeracy in the above studies
neither follow Cattell's ideal-typical paths of Gc nor Gf but are best described as
a mixture of both. The reason might be that although literacy and numeracy
constitute acquired skills that are sensitive to education and experience (like
Cattell's Gc and Baltes's cognitive pragmatics), but they also depend on Gf-type
abilities or cognitive mechanics such as processing visual stimuli and manipulating
them in working memory. For comparison, longitudinal research on cognitive aging
focusing on basic cognitive abilities found approximately linear declines in Gf-
type cognitive abilities (e.g., processing speed, reasoning, memory) from early
adulthood onward that accelerated in old adulthood (Salthouse, 2019)—with the
exception of increases with age in vocabulary. Vocabulary, of course, is an
acquired skill, which is closer to Cattell's conception of Gc than to Gf and an
essential part of literacy skills.
Third, beyond average age trends, there are additional individual differences and
group differences in skill change. For example, using cross-sectional PIAAC 2012
data, Paccagnella (2016) compared age differences in literacy and numeracy skills
among adults with different levels of educational qualification (i.e., primary,
secondary, and tertiary or above). He found that among those with the highest
educational qualification, the apparent decreases of skills with increasing age
were more pronounced than among those with lower qualifications. By contrast, a
recent longitudinal study found that higher education had a protective effect
against declines in literacy over time after controlling for initial level of
literacy skills (Wicht et al., 2020). In addition, while some studies suggest a
tendency of female adults having relative strength in literacy and of male adults
having relative strength in numeracy across the life course (e.g, Houtkoop & Jones,
1998; Satherley & Lawes, 2008), other studies show only a small to non-existent
gender differences in adults' literacy skills (Solheim & Lundetræ, 2018). It
remains unclear whether cross-sectional gender differences translate to
differential change over time, and some studies did not find any pronounced gender
differences in cross-sectional PIAAC skill profiles (OECD, 2016) or in skill change
over time (Reder, 2009; Wicht et al.,2020). Another longitudinal study found women
to start off at higher literacy levels but experience smaller proficiency gains
over time compared to men (Wolf & Jenkins, 2014).
Although these prior studies have greatly advanced our knowledge about skill
development in adulthood, the majority of these studies is based on large-scale
cross-sectional surveys such as PIAAC and its predecessors (i.e., the International
Adult Literacy Survey in 1994 and 1998 or the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey
in 2003, 2006, and 2008); or on small-scale longitudinal studies based on selective
samples such as the longitudinal study of adult learners (LSAL) that focuses on
highschool dropouts in the US (Reder, 2009) or adults in basic skills programs in
the UK (e.g., Wolf & Jenkins, 2014). Cross-sectional studies can be advantageous in
that they do not suffer from selective attrition of lowskilled
or lower-educated individuals, as most longitudinal assessment surveys do (Martin
et al., 2020). Moreover, cross-sectional studies are unbiased from retest artifacts
which plague some longitudinal surveys,especially ones that apply traditional
designs in which the exact same items are administered repeatedly (Salthouse,
2019). At the same time, cross-sectional studies of age differences are limited in
that they are unable to disentangle age-related changes from cohort effects. That
is,they are unable to ascertain whether the putative age differences are due to
age-related changes or stem from preexisting differences in skills between
different birth cohorts (which may alreacy have arisen in childhood or
adolescence). Small-scale longitudinal studies based on selective samples,
meanwhile, are limited in that their findings may not generalize to the population
as a whole. Moreover, by their very nature,these studies cover some subgroups
(e.g., high-school dropouts) in a certain life stage but not other subgroups and
life stages that may be of interest to policymakers and practitioners. Also,
compared to literacy,the life-span development of numeracy has received much less
attention in prior research, despite the frequently encountered argument in the
literature that numeracy skills are gaining in importance on today's labor markets
(e.g., Gal et al., 2020; Gauly et al., 2020). In order to overcome the limitations
of cross-sectional and small-scale longitudinal designs, repeated measures of
literacy and numeracy skills are needed. Such data have long been in short supply.
Until very recently, there were no data sources available internationally that
combined the following desirable features that would allow for complete and robust
answers to questions surrounding age-related changes in skills during adulthood: A
large and non-selective sample; objective, and high-quality skill assessments;and a
repeated measures design.