The Proceedings of IRC 2008

Measuring Civic Competence in Europe1

Bryony Hoskins, CRELL, Joint Research Center, European Commission, [email protected]

Ernesto Villalba, CRELL, Joint Research Center, European Commission, [email protected]
Daniel Van Nijlen, Centre for Educational Effectiveness and Evaluation, Katholieke Universiteit
Leuven, [email protected]
Carolyn Barber, University of Missouri-Kansas City, [email protected]

Abstract

Measuring Civic Competence in Europe is part of a process to establish and monitor the
learning outcomes needed to facilitate the development of active citizens in Europe. This
article is an exploration of how civic competence can be measured and the results of these
measurements across Europe and internationally. It describes what civic competence is in
terms of the attitudes, values, knowledge and skills required and how it can be calculated using
existing data from international tests. The data and scales used are from the IEA 1999
international Civic Education study of 14-year-olds in school. It clearly highlights the
limitations of the data coverage for civic competence and explains which aspects of civic
competence are not available and the implication for measuring civic competence. Following
this, the Civic Competence Composite Indicator (CCCI) is built using a framework comprised
of 4 dimensions; Citizenship values, Social justice (both values and attitudes), Participatory
attitudes and Cognitions about democratic institutions. Statistically the composite indicator
was proved to be robust.

The results of the CCCI ranking do not show clear geographical patterns. There is some
tendency for Southern-European countries to be in the upper part of the ranking with Cyprus
and Greece doing particularly well in the overall CCCI. For the four dimensions the results
across Europe show that in countries with long standing stable democracies, where there are
high levels of adult participation, young people’s attitudes towards participation and
Citizenship values are low. The opposite is true for less stable and more recent democracies

1
We are grateful to Judith Torney-Purta (University of Maryland, College Park, USA), who is the
author of several major publications on the CivEd data, for assisting in interpretation of the IEA Civic
Education data and suggesting some of the analysis included here. We are also appreciative of the
support given by the Council of Europe including their cooperation with the CRELL Active Citizenship
Research Network and research carried out by their experts on this topic. We would also like to thank
the CRELL Active Citizenship for Democracy Research Network and the European Commission
Expert Group who have all contributed with advice on this report

1
 The Proceedings of IRC 2008

that can be found in south and east Europe: in these countries young people have greater
Participatory attitudes and values. North and West Europe fared better in the results for
cognition about democratic institutions and the values of Social justice. In this case it was
Eastern European countries that had low scores. The lack of a history of democratic
citizenship education and the experience of Communism are likely to be contributory factors.

Keywords: Civic competences, Europe, Composite indicator, active citizenship, democracy

Introduction

Within European education and social policy, the promotion of active citizenship has been
considered to be one tool to enhance democracy and social cohesion. It has been a strand of the
social cohesion element of the Lisbon strategy within the Education and Training Work
Programme (European Commission 2001). The method used for monitoring progress made
towards the Lisbon strategy in the field of education is through the use of indicators. In 2005
the research project on which this paper is based, Active Citizenship in a Learning Context,
began in order to develop exploratory research on indicator development in the field of active
citizenship.

The first major output from this research project was the development of a measurement of
active citizenship in Europe: the Active Citizenship Composite Indicator ACCI (Hoskins et al.
2006) based on 63 indicators from existing data, predominantly European Social Survey data
from 2002. A question raised from the production of this composite indicator was how did
citizenship relate to learning and in particular what were the learning outcomes required for an
individual to become an active citizen? This paper addresses this question, exploring the
learning outcomes – referred to in this paper as civic competence – the knowledge, skills,
attitudes and values needed to enable individuals to become an active citizen.

Competences are a combination of different phenomena, including dimensions that include

the cognitive dimensions (knowledge and skills) and affective dimensions (attitudes and
values). To have a high degree of civic competence one needs to have a high level on all these
dimensions and, as such, the system of a composite indicator measuring different items and
combining them together provides and an overview of this. It is of course necessary to also
examine the levels of each different dimension and to understand in which dimensions
countries are performing well and on which dimensions they need to do more work. It is also
recognised that using composite indicators is a tool for monitoring progress and
communicating a topic within policy, practice and civil society. It does not replace the in-depth
and detailed research to understand and explain this phenomenon.

2
 The Proceedings of IRC 2008

Civic competence has recently become the focus of European Union education policy where
European Union Countries have agreed that this competence is one of the 8 key competences
that are stated to be a necessity for economic success in Europe and greater social inclusion
(Education Council 2006). The 2007 Council Conclusions on ‘A Coherent framework of
indicators and benchmarks’ (Education Council 2007) identified that civic competence, the
individual learning outcomes required for active citizenship, should become one of the 16
indicators used to measure progress on the education and training Lisbon Strategy. This paper
addresses the question of how to measure civic competence using the IEA 1999 CivEd data, in
light of the fact that the European Commission is funding part of the cost of European
Countries to participate in the future IEA survey on this topic (International civic and
citizenship education study 2009).

Basing the production of indicators on existing data has some limitations in terms of what can
be measured. There is a gap between what we would like to be able to measure and what is
available from existing data sources, and the outcome is that it can cause the exact
operationalisation of the composite to differ from the intended measurement. This, to some
extent, is the case for a civic competence composite indicator in which the selection of
indicators is heavily based on the existing international data in this field, the IEA 1999 survey
on civic education (CivEd 1999) that tests 14 years old in school. Thus, the civic competence
indicator cannot measure civic competence in the generic sense or pertain to the adult
population. It is only representative of students aged 14 in school in the 28 participating
countries. The civic competence indicator measures the dimensions of civic competence that
were considered of interest to this survey and not all dimensions of civic competence, as will
be explained in detail later in this paper. In these circumstances, the research in this research
should be considered to be exploratory.

Civic competence in the context of active citizenship

In order to understand the reason why we are researching civic competence, it is necessary to
comprehend the working model of active citizenship in a learning context that describes the
wider project on which this research is based. Overall levels of education have been associated
with higher levels of participation (Putnam 2000), but Campbell (2007 p. 26) points out that
despite this close association the connection between learning and participation remains a
‘black box’. In the overall research project we are trying to identify what are the learning
inputs and learning outcomes that are needed to facilitate active citizenship. This relationship
is represented in the model below (Figure 1 based on an original model from NFER 2006 for
this project). In this model civic competence is understood as the ability required for enabling
individuals to become active citizens. Active citizenship has been defined as: ‘Participation in
civil society, community and/or political life, characterised by mutual respect and

3
 The Proceedings of IRC 2008

non-violence and in accordance with human rights and democracy’ (Hoskins, 2006). The
model presents the ideal relationship between learning, civic competence and active
citizenship where the learning develops certain civic competences that drive active citizenship.
Civic competence is the third column along in this model and this competence is developed
from the second column, i.e. the learning input that derives from varied types of learning
(formal, non-formal or informal learning environments). The learning inputs refer to the
definition of Education and Training for active citizenship from this project, which are the
Learning opportunities (formal, non-formal and informal) that occurs at any stage of the life
cycles that facilitate or encourage active citizenship (Hoskins 2006b). In an ideal world, as the
model suggests, it could be expected that civic competences (column 3) would lead to an
individual becoming an active citizen (column 4). However, researching this relationship is
not the focus for this article.

[Take in Figure 1 about here]

The article is divided into 6 sections. Section 2 defines civic competence using European and
international lists of the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values used to measure civic
competence. Section 3 describes the data we will use to measure civic competence, which in
this paper is the IEA CivEd 1999 data set, and how the data covers the different dimensions of
civic competence. Section 4 describes the development of the framework and how the scales
included in the civic competence framework were created and explains the methodology used
to create the composite indicator, indicating the standardisation as well as the weighting
procedure. The results of the composite indicator for civic competence and the four domains
are presented in section 5. Section 6 draws the conclusions of this research.

What is civic competence?

A competence is a combination of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values which enable a

person to perform real world tasks such as active citizenship. In order to understand what
knowledge, skills, values, attitudes to include within the framework of civic competence it
was necessary to establish what exactly civic competence is. Civic competence was defined
in the European Council and European Parliament’s (2006) Recommendation on Key
Competences for Lifelong Learning. It highlights the importance of knowledge of the
development of, and institutions that reflect, democracy, justice, equality, citizenship, and
civil rights. It draws attention to the skills of communication, problem solving, critical and
creative reflection, decision making, responsibility, respect for other values including
awareness of diversity and the attitudes and values of solidarity, human rights, equality, and
democracy (Education Council 2006).

4
 The Proceedings of IRC 2008

The Council of Europe (CoE), who has focused in their work on the learning strategies for
democratic citizenship -which clearly relates to the development of civic competence and
active citizenship- have created a number of classifications of competences which are
necessary for the individual outcomes from education for democratic citizenship. The first of
CoE lists was produced by Veldhuis (1997), combining political, social cultural and
economic dimensions, and then Audigiers (2000) who highlights cognitive competences in
the legal system and a number of practical skills relating to participation in political contexts
and multicultural communities. The first of these lists, by Veldhuis (1997), is similar to the
(1998) European Commission text in the way that it includes the economic dimension and
labour market. Veldhuis’ (1997) list differs in its reference to cultural heritage and the
introduction of the notion of the need for basic skills. The second list, prepared by Audigier
(2000), brings in the new dimensions of procedural and legal competence, conflict resolution
and the notion of ‘capacity for action’. From the research on European education systems,
Eurydice has noted that in general across Europe formal citizenship education is orientated
to teaching “political literacy, critical thinking, the development of certain attitudes and
values and active participation” (Eurydice, 2005).

Various national lists of civic competences have been drawn up in the UK and in the US,
which include knowledge of their own national systems. In the UK the Crick report (1998),
which was influential in the setting up of citizenship curriculum in schools in England,
highlighted the learning outcomes that were necessary: key concepts, values and dispositions,
skills and aptitudes, knowledge and understanding. It provides an extensive list of these
attributes and highlights the ability for an individual to change their mind, and courage and
commitment towards certain values. In the US the term dispositions is used. For example,
the National Center for Learning and Citizenship at the Education Commission of the States
highlights the dispositions regarding independence, responsibility and respectfulness
towards others, as well as skills that are described as either thinking skills or participatory
skills (Torney-Purta and Vermeer Lopez 2006 p.12).

OECD projects in this field have been developing individual indicators of civil and social
engagement and analysed correlations with overall levels of education. The focus here has
been on education as a whole as the driver for civil and social engagement. This would be
the equivalent for us of examining civic competence and active citizenship as a single set of
indicators together and then comparing this to levels of formal education. Using this
approach, consultants for OECD (INES Network B) have created lists of learning outcomes
that include both competences and practices together under the terminology of civic literacy
defined as ‘knowledge, values, attitudes and practices that individuals acquire over the
course of their life to become citizens participating in democratic societies’ (Baye &

5
 The Proceedings of IRC 2008

Mainguet 2006). The aspects of a competence mentioned in the lists are knowledge, skills
and values such as responsibility, trust in institutions and critical thinking (Baye & Mainguet
2006), and bureaucratic competence, civic skills such as running meetings, giving speeches
and writing letters, and cognitive capacity (Campbell 2006).

From all these various lists of civic competence it can be said that this competence requires a
very broad range of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values. Some of the lists contain actual
participation, whilst other lists recognise behaviour as distinct phenomena. Trust is the most
controversial concept to be covered in the lists, with those influenced by political science
and social capital literature more likely to opt in for this aspect, and those influenced more
by education literature preferring to emphasise a lack of trust in institutions to keep
institutions accountable. Further distinctions between the lists were largely based on whether
to take into account the economic sphere and basic skills like reading and writing. The
remaining differences predominantly result from adding greater precision and detail to the
different aspects of the competences. Overall the lists of civic competence are marked by
their similarity and continuity rather than differences.

Veldhuis and Abs (2006) list developed for this project has been used as the reference
framework for our model of civic competence. The list below is the final list that we have
developed to meet our definition of civic competence. It is based on the refined list of
Veldhuis and Abs (2006) but with our own refinements. This provided us with a good basis
to start exploring the existing datasets.

[Insert Table 1 about here]

We decided not to use the concept of trust within our list of civic competence due to the
complication with using trust as an indicator in Europe. Mascherini et al. (2007) found by
analysing European Social Survey data, the levels of trust are high for people who
participate in northern Europe. However, the opposite is true for most of Southern and
Eastern Europe where low levels of trust are present amongst European individuals who
engage (Mascherini et al. 2007). This could well relate to the length and stability of
democracy in south and east Europe. For example, Torney-Purta, Richardson and Barber
(2004), using the IEA 1999 CivEd international data, show that the levels of trust reflect the
current political climate of that country and that in countries with less stable democracies,
such as Bulgaria, Chile and Colombia, levels of trust were lower and the more civic
knowledge you have in these countries, the less likely that you were to trust. Both Campbell
(2006) and Torney-Purta, Richardson and Barber (2004) discuss that although democracy
requires that its leaders are not given too much trust in order to maintain the checks and
balances of their power, some level of trust in the system is necessary for cohesion and

6
 The Proceedings of IRC 2008

stable democracy, and this is referred to as a ‘threshold of trustworthiness’. However, this

optimal level of trust has not been established (Campbell 2006) and it is therefore not
obvious how an indicator based on a scale of trust can be implemented in practical terms.
For example, is self-reported trust in institutions all of the time, better or worse than
claiming never to trust institutions?

Data

In this paper, we will explore one data source, the IEA 1999 CivEd survey. The reason for
this choice is that it is the only existing international data source collected from
representative national samples that tests knowledge, skills and values, attitudes and
intended behaviour relating to civic competence. The 1999 CivEd survey was administered
in 28 countries. The aim of this study was to ‘understand how young people are prepared to
undertake their role as citizens’ (Torney-Purta et al. 2001). It tested students at schools in
grade 8 (with an average age above 13.5 years). The content domains of the study’s
framework were:

1. Democracy/citizenship,

2. National identity/international relations

3. Social cohesion and identity.

“Democracy/ citizenship” referred to the meaning of democracy and the role and practices of
its institutions. “National identity/international relations” referred to national identity and
loyalty and the implications of this for international relations. “Social cohesion and identity”
referred to young people’s attitudes towards discrimination and feelings towards their
country. Within the three domains horizontal abilities were tested on their knowledge of the
content, skills in interpretation, concepts, attitudes and actions. Knowledge and skills items
were coded as correct or incorrect responses in the “civic knowledge test” whilst concepts,
attitudes and actions were administered using a four point scale (e.g. not important,
somewhat unimportant, somewhat important and very important). Other test items included
questions that the IEA referred to as either confidence in the classroom participation or
classroom climate.

CivEd developed scales

Our model builds on previous analysis of IEA CivEd data. In order to be useful, measurements
need to be reliable and thus, it is crucial to be able to evaluate the reliability of measurements.
Individual items always suffer from a certain measurement error, but when several items tap

7
 The Proceedings of IRC 2008

the same construct, putting them together in a well-constructed scale will result in a more
reliable measurement of the construct. This idea can be compared to using a crude balance to
measure an object’s weight. If it is only measured once (individual item), the result will have
large errors, but weighing it several times (several items) and using the average of the different
results (scale) will give a more reliable indication of the object’s weight. Moreover, for a
single item from a paper-and-pencil survey it is impossible to evaluate the reliability of the
measurement. If several items are used, the internal consistency of the result can be evaluated
using measures of reliability such as Cronbach’s Alpha. The IEA found an acceptable
reliability of the scales in each country. Finally, the individual items in the questionnaire are to
be considered as a sample of the whole population of possible items to measure a construct.

IEA (Schultz and Sibberns, 2004) developed 11 scales within the domain of “concepts,
attitudes and actions” and two additional scales (“Knowledge of content” and “Skills in
interpretation of material with civic or political content”), that were aggregated into one as the
“total civic knowledge”. In addition to these 13 (+ 1) scales the technical report identified
another seven scales that were not developed. Five of these seven scales were later developed
by Husfeldt, Barber, & Torney-Purta (2006). In the same publication they identified and
created three new scales with CIVED data related to expected political participation and
internal political efficacy (see table below). In addition, we developed an extra scale referring
to attitudes towards Democratic rights. We used these different scales in order to fulfil the data
needs of our framework.

[Insert table 2 about here]

Development of a model for a composite indicator on Civic Competence

The next step was to compare the dimensions of civic competence to the data available in the
CivEd survey. This will provide an indication of the extent to which CivEd covers the different
dimension of civic competences. The different dimensions of civic competence involve
aspects that are difficult to cover fully within conventional international surveys (using paper
and pencil tests). Moreover, as is normal with large-scale international surveys, the exact
details of all the items for knowledge and skills scales are not publicly available, so that they
can be reused, and therefore it is not easy to determine if those items are fully covering the
dimensions described.

The dimensions of civic competence are compared to the IEA scales mentioned above. If there
was no satisfactory congruence between the dimensions and the scales, we explored if there
was some correspondence with specific items measured in the survey. The result of the content
analysis showed that knowledge and skills domains are mainly covered by different aspects of

8
 The Proceedings of IRC 2008

the scales directed to assess “knowledge of the content” (KNOWL) and “skills in
interpretation” (SKILS) (measured by IEA through the ‘civic knowledge test’). The skills
dimension focuses to a large extent on interpreting the media. The affective dimensions are
covered by the scales on concepts, attitudes and actions of the student questionnaire.

Most dimensions of civic competence are only partially covered. Aspects related to civic
knowledge of one’s own country are not covered in the IEA study, for example national
history and cultural heritage. However, knowledge of basic institutions of democracy and key
elements of the political and legal system are relatively well covered.

The dimension of skills has the least coverage. Skills that require interaction, for example,
civic skills, such as “to build coalitions, to cooperate”, or “to resolve conflict peacefully”,
cannot be covered within international surveys because it would require observations to test
these skills. The loss of these elements from the civic competence composite indicator is quite
significant because of their clear importance to being able to become an active citizen. The
skills that refer to “to be able to live and work in a multicultural environment” require other
types of methodology and questions to those used in CivEd and highlight further the
limitations of what can be measured as civic competence.

In the case of attitudes, values and intended behaviour we found 16 scales to be relevant to the
dimensions of civic competence. These scales are: CTCON, CTSOC, DEM, TRUST,
WOMRT, MINOR, CONFS, SCON, POLAT, VOTE, COMM, PROTE and EFFIC (see table
2). These scales identified partially cover many of the dimensions of the affective component
in civic competence. Some dimensions are covered by several scales, as for example “respect
for the human rights” is covered by DEM, WOMRT, MINOR and IMMIG. Other dimensions
are poorly covered, for example, only one item (item B1 on section on Good citizenship) can
be said to cover the dimension “acceptance of the rule of law”. Also in the case of “strive for
justice and equality and equal treatment of citizens” some items were found to be covering
aspects of the dimension but no scale covered the whole of it.

Therefore, the operational measurement of civic competence that we attempt with the
composite indicator does not contain all the dimensions identified within civic competence.
However, it partially covers many of them in all the different domains of the cognitive and
affective components. In terms of “knowledge”, our composite indicator covers mainly
knowledge of basic concepts of democracy and key elements of the political and legal system.
“Skills” is the domain that is covered the least, since many of its dimensions require other
types of methodology to be assessed and the skills covered in the tests were more cognitive
than behavioural. The missing skills that are of particular importance for having civic
competence, such as building coalitions, cooperating, resolving conflict peacefully and

9
 The Proceedings of IRC 2008

communicating will reduce the operationalised measurement of civic competence. The

affective component with the domains of values, attitudes and dispositions is covered in most
of its dimensions but only partially.

Towards a measurement model

In order to develop a measurement model for a composite indicator we used factor analysis.
Table 3 presents the loadings of the rotated solution. Each column shows the factor loadings
for each of the scales on the components with eigenvalues greater than one. The eigenvalue
reflects the amount of variance in the data that is captured by the component or the factor. The
list of scales is organised according to the structure of our hypothetical measurement model.
The table presents in bold the highest factor loadings for each scale and in italic other loadings
that might be considered for interpretation (above 0.35). As can be seen from the factor
loadings, the underlying structure of the data does not correspond fully with our hypothetical
model. The domain of values is divided into two components, as was the case in our
hypothetical model. Intended behaviour seems to emerge from the data also; however, the
domain “attitudes” is somehow blurred.

[Insert Table 3 about here]

Methodology

The measurement model, emerging from the FA and the interpretation of the results is
represented in figure 2. The measurement model for civic competence has four components:
Citizenship values (cval), Social justice (socj), Participatory attitudes (parta) and
Cognition about democratic institutions (cogd). cval, socj and parta are arguably mainly
related to the affective side of civic competence, while the construct cogd is mainly related to
the theoretical cognitive domain.

The reliability for each of the components is presented in Table 4. The reliability of the four
constructs that emerged from the factor analysis is acceptable given the fact that only a limited
number of scales are included in each construct. Table 4 shows two values of Cronbach’s
alpha, one calculated using data from all the countries in CivEd, and the other using only the
European Union countries. The table shows that the four identified domains have acceptable
reliability both at an international and European level. cval had a more acceptable reliability if
TRUST was not considered (see Hoskins et al. 2008). For this reason, because of the
theoretical and measurement arguments presented above, and because the results of the FA
had comparable results but were more difficult to interpret when TRUST was included, we
decided that the composite indicator should not be calculated using the scale TRUST.

10
 The Proceedings of IRC 2008

The reliability of cogd increased slightly to 0.829 if the scale on democratic rights (DEM) was
excluded. However, the reliability with DEM included was very satisfactory and the inclusion
of DEM provides an innovative approach to the measurement of the cognitive aspects of civic
competence. Making a trade-off between these two elements, it was decided to keep DEM in
the subdomain cogd.

[Insert Table 4 about here]

In our model no extra layer in the structure dividing the measurement model into affective and
cognitive component was created. A factor analysis on the four subdomains indicated that it
was not possible to make a clear-cut distinction between the affective and cognitive
subdomains. The FA showed e.g. that the subdomain Social Justice was linked to the
subdomains on values and attitudes, but also had a clear link to the cognitions subdomain.

Creating a composite indicator for civic competence

Nardo et al. (2005) define a composite indicator as “a mathematical combination of individual

indicators that represent different dimensions of a concept whose description is the objective
of the analysis” (p. 7). In the current paper the concept of civic competence is summarised into
one number that encompasses different dimensions. To create this composite indicator the
methodological guidelines of Nardo et al. (2005) were followed.

In order to create the composite indicator for civic competence we used thirteen scales
developed with CivEd data that encompass 46 Likert-type items from the student
questionnaire on “student concepts, attitudes and actions” and 38 multiple-response items
from the “civic knowledge test”. We used seven scales developed by IEA (CTCON, CTSOC,
WOMRT, CONFS, POLAT, KNOWL, SKILS). In addition we used five scales developed by
CEDARS: two scales identified but not developed by IEA (MINOR, SCON), and three scales
identified by CEDARS (EFFIC, COMM, VOTE). We also developed two extra scales, one
identified by IEA (SCON) and one identified by the authors (DEM). All the scales have been
created using Confirmatory Factor Analysis conducted within small groups of related items
followed by IRT modelling.

Due to the different scaling procedures the scales had different units of measurement. To
combine the scales in a composite it is necessary that the scores are comparable and an
additional standardisation procedure was necessary. Different standardisation techniques are
available (see e.g. Nardo et al., 2005). The basic standardisation technique that will be applied
is the Min-Max approach. Using this method, all the indicators have been rescaled and the
standardised values will lie between 0 and 1. In a later phase, in order to assess the robustness
of the composite indicator, also the Z-score standardization will be applied as an alternative

11
 The Proceedings of IRC 2008

method. For more details see Hoskins et al. (2008).

Once the data has been standardised it is possible to start the process of aggregation. The
resulted score of an aggregation procedure is the linear weighted sum of the normalized
domains, domains or scales. This means that the different scales have to be combined to create
the different nodes of the structure and this combination is adjusted by the weights given to
each of the scales. In the present case we used mainly an equal weighting scheme with a
simple additive method. This means that, for example, the four included domains have the
same weight for calculating the ‘civic competence composite indicator’.

Figure 2 shows the summary structure of the civic competence composite indicator, together
with a detailed listing of the items that are included in the scales. The ovals below the scales
show the technique used to create each scale as well as the weighting structure to create the
composites.

[Insert figure 2 about here]

To obtain the rankings for the countries presented in the next section of the article the
individual scores are aggregated using the sample weights as indicated by the IEA technical
report. In this way it is possible to obtain unbiased estimates of the country scores for the
composite indicator.

Because the quality of a ranking system depends on the soundness of its assumptions, good
practice requires evaluating confidence in the system and assessing the uncertainties
associated with its development process. To ensure the validity of the messages conveyed by
this composite indicator, it is important that the sensitivity of the country rankings to the
structure and aggregation approach be adequately studied. Using sensitivity analysis, we can
study how variations in rankings derive from different sources of variation in the assumptions.
The sensitivity analysis was undertaken with respect to the following sources of uncertainty:
the structure of and the standardization technique. For more details on the robustness analysis
see Hoskins et al. (2008).

Results

The presentation of the results will focus on the civic competence composite indicator and the
four domains that have been identified within this framework: Citizenship values, Social
justice (V/A), Participatory attitudes and Cognitions about democratic institutions.

Country rankings

12
 The Proceedings of IRC 2008

[Insert figure 3 and table 5 about here]

For the overall Civic Competence Composite Indicator there is a mixed pattern of results with
no strong regional trends. There is some tendency for Southern-European countries to be in
the upper part of the ranking with Cyprus and Greece doing particularly well in the overall
CCCI and in the domains of Citizenship values, Participatory attitudes and cognition
about democratic institutions, but a Northern-European country like Norway can also be
found in top part of the overall CCCI ranking along with some former communist countries
such as Poland, Slovakia and Romania. Other Northern-European countries, such as Denmark
and Finland, are found in the lower middle part of the CCCI rankings together with some other
former communist countries such as Lithuania, Slovenia and Hungary. Two Baltic States close
the CCCI rankings, together with Belgium (FR) (see figure 3).

Greece and Cyprus, who out perform the rest of Europe and the rest of the world in the overall
composite and in almost all the dimensions, have a number of commonalities, such as a
common cultural heritage from the classical period when democracy was first introduced in
Greece, recent instability and transition (back) to democracy. For Greece this was in 1974, and
Cyprus became an independent country (from the UK) in 1960 but experienced a military
coop between 1967-1974. Both countries continue to have military tensions with Turkey
over the territory held by that country in northern Cyprus since their invasion in 1974. Both
countries in 1999 had civics in the curriculum in primary and secondary education in schools
and have in the past had tendencies towards patriotic education and to an extent, particularly in
Cyprus, still focus on Greek national history and Greek Cypriot national identity (Makrinioti
and Solomon 1999) and (Papanastasiou and Koutselini-Ioannidou 1999). However, it very
difficult to say exactly why these two countries develop higher levels of civic competence in
young people and further research is clearly needed to understand this.

The 4 dimensions

[Insert figure 4]

Concerning the four dimensions of the composite (Cognition about democratic institutions,
Participatory attitudes, Social justice and Citizenship values) there were some regional
results that deserve further exploration. Cyprus, Greece, Finland, Italy, Slovakia and Poland
are high performing countries for the dimension of Cognition about democratic institutions;
in contrast, the Baltic states of Lithuania and Latvia do not perform well in this domain (see
figure 4). Southern and former Communist European countries; Cyprus, Portugal, Romania,
Poland, and Slovakia, are high performing countries for the dimension of Participatory
attitudes whereas most of the Northern European Countries that participated in the survey

13
 The Proceedings of IRC 2008

(Denmark, Sweden and Finland), and most of the Western European countries that
participated (Germany, England and Switzerland) close the rankings in this dimension,
together with some of the former communist countries (Estonia, Lithuania, Czech Republic
and Bulgaria) (see figure 4). Northern, Southern and Western European countries of Cyprus,
Portugal, Norway and England are high performers on the dimension of Social Justice in
contrast to the Russian Federation, Hungary, Bulgaria and Latvia, all former communist
countries, who are low performers in this domain. Poland is the outlier by being both a former
communist country and a high performer (see figure 4). The former communist countries of
Romania and Lithuania are high performing countries on Citizenship values whereas
Northern and Western Europe perform less well, with Denmark, England, Belgium (French
speaking) and Finland closing the ranking for this dimension, with Estonia being the outlier
who joins this group at the end of the table (see figure 4). One possible explanation for the
tendency for lower performances of Northern and Western Europe is that these countries have
longer and more stable democracies (mostly originating from 19th century or earlier). There is
a higher level of participation in their adult populations than in their Southern and Eastern
European neighbours (Hoskins et al. 2006) and (van Deth, Montro and Westholm 2007). Thus,
young people from South Europe and East Europe, in countries who have experienced recent
transition to democracies and less stability altogether, could value democracy and have a
greater intention to participate in order to develop and maintain it in their country, whilst their
northern and western counter parts do not place so much value on the democratic system that
they have inherited. We have already described the example of Cyprus and Greece from
Southern Europe as countries with recent transitions to democracy. Another example from
Eastern Europe is Slovenia, one of the fastest paced transition countries to democracy and
towards EU membership, which had its first democratic elections in 1990 and gained
independence in 1991 after a short war. From 1991-2001 it faced further wars on its doorstep
in the rest of the former Yugoslavia with migrants entering Slovenia from this conflict. In 1999
there were a number of political scandals involving the then prime minister and a number of
public scandals, including in the police service. The hypothesis is that these unstable political
external factors are giving young people a reason to value participation.

[Insert table 6, 7, 8 and 9 about here]

In the dimension of Social justice the results are different, with Northern, Southern and
Western European countries such as Cyprus, Portugal, Norway and England performing well,
in contrast to the Russian Federation, Hungary, Bulgaria and Latvia, all former communist
countries, who are the low performers in this domain. Poland is the outlier by being both a
former communist country and a high performer. These regional results are less strong for
Cognition about democratic institutions, but still follow this slight trend with Northern,

14
 The Proceedings of IRC 2008

Southern and Western European countries being found in the top half of the table, with the
exception of Slovakia and Poland who are high performing countries for this dimension. In
contrast, Eastern European countries tend to be located in the bottom half of the table with
Romania, and the Baltic states of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia giving low performances. The
outlier in this case is Portugal who also does not perform well for Cognition about
democratic institutions.

An explanation for these results is that for the Eastern European countries previous
experiences of communism were affecting both the knowledge and values of equality in
young people. As Buk-Berge (2006 p.534) highlights the change from communism to
democracies provided a dramatic change in civic education, unprecedented in history,
‘previously based on the aim of indoctrinating them into builders of communism, it had to be
transformed into the education of citizens living in a democracy’. Reforms of the education
system across Eastern Europe were taking place and citizenship education was being
introduced, for example in Slovenia ‘The White Paper on Education in Slovenia (1996)’.

Interestingly, gaining low results for cognition is not the case for all former communist
countries, for example, Poland. Buk-Berge (2006) points out that this might be the case due to
the fact that in Poland the notion of civil society and communitarian notions of democracy had
been developed outside the education system within the resistance movements and the
Catholic Church prior to the fall of communism. She also gives example of how the new civic
curriculum introduced in Poland was very innovative and orientated towards every day life in
a democracy, in particular focusing on civil society and the community. However, this
investigation so far is simply exploratory in terms of providing theories for these results, and
further research is needed to provide a more solid basis for these theories.

The similar country trends for Social justice and cognition and the trends for Participatory
attitudes and Citizenship values can also be found from exploring the data on the individual
level (see table 5). In the individual level data the highest correlations were found between
Participatory attitudes and Citizenship values, supporting the theory that there is
connection between these two phenomena. Importantly for education purposes there was a
higher correlation also between Social justice and Cognition. Citizenship values, however,
seemed relatively independent of cognition. In addition to the country level trends, there was
also a link on the individual level between Social justice and Participatory attitudes. As
Social justice correlates with all the dimensions it therefore seems to some extent an
underlying principle for civic competence.

[Insert Table 10 about here]

15
 The Proceedings of IRC 2008

Conclusions

Measuring Civic Competence in Europe is part of a process to establish and monitor the
learning outcomes needed to facilitate the development of active citizens in Europe. The first
step of this project was to measure active citizenship in Europe through the development of a
composite indicator using information from the European Social Survey of adults
supplemented by some additional information (see Hoskins et al. 2006). This article
constitutes the second step of measuring the levels of civic competence through the
development of a composite indicator, the CCCI. This composite indicator pertains to the
individual outcomes of learning for active citizenship among 14-year-olds, which is referred
to as civic competence and contains indicators on civic knowledge, skills, attitudes and values.
This was hypothesised to be the driving force for value-based engagement of active
citizenship. This article is the first time that civic competence has been measured as a holistic
concept combining cognitive and affective dimensions together and, as such, the results are
innovative, but they must also be considered exploratory in their nature and tentative in their
interpretation.

In this article we have built a composite indicator on civic competence based on the theoretical
framework of a competence i.e. the holistic understanding that certain cognitive functions,
such as knowledge and skills, and affective functions, such as attitudes and values, are
important components of individual learning outcomes, including the learning outcome of
civic competence. We have further developed the framework by exploring the nature of civic
competence, in particular by reflecting on different lists of attributes required and an ideal list
was created. This ideal list we consider to be a basis for discussion on possible curriculum
development, keeping in mind that school is not only learning opportunity to develop these
competences. Next we explored the existing international data on civic competence which at
the moment is only the IEA CivEd 1999 data. These data will be soon updated with the new
IEA ICCS study 2009. Thus the framework has been developed in a manner in which it can be
repeated over time to analyse trends.

Some data was available for all of the different components of a competence but there were
some significant gaps. The biggest gaps were in the skills component in which many
important dimensions were missing, such as “to build coalitions’, ‘to cooperate’, ‘to resolve
conflict peacefully’ and ’to know how to vote’. It is not surprising that this data is not available
from international tests because these skills would require observations or forms of tests very
different from the conventional paper and pencil that currently exist in international tests. As a
result we recognise that the final results of the composite indicator do not measure certain
skills which are needed for civic competence. Additional to this it should be noted that the
results of the composite reflect only the situation for 14 year old pupils and not for the general

16
 The Proceedings of IRC 2008

population. With these caveats, we have found 84 indicators that were relevant to civic
competence and covered the different components of knowledge, skills, attitudes, values and
intended behaviour. Existing IEA scales were used to facilitate the building of the composite
with the addition of scales developed by the CEDARS-project and by the current research
team. The theoretical structure was empirically tested and this resulted in a revised model that
distinguished four domains in civic competence: Citizenship values, Social justice (both
values and attitudes), Participatory attitudes and Cognition about democratic institutions.

The composite indicator was built using the techniques described by Nardo et al. (2005) and
equal weights were given for each dimension and sub-dimension. A multilevel regression
analysis was completed on the scores to determine if the country differences were significant
and robustness analysis was performed to test the solidity of the composite indicator. The
composite indicator proved to be very robust.

In contrast to what is often observed in rankings such as the Active Citizenship Composite
Indicator, the CCCI ranking presented in this article do not in general show clear geographical
patterns, and where patterns do occur these do not follow typical European scoreboard results
(e.g. Innovation, GDP and gender equality). There is some tendency for Southern-European
countries to be in the upper part of the ranking, with Cyprus and Greece doing particularly
well in the overall CCCI and in the domains of Citizenship values, Participatory attitudes
and Cognition about democratic institutions. We suggested that this could be as a result of
their ancient culture of democracy which has been taught in schools. Other
Northern-European countries such as Denmark and Finland are found in the lower-middle part
of the CCCI rankings together with some other former communist countries such as Lithuania,
Slovenia and Hungary. Two Baltic States close the CCCI rankings together with Belgium (FR).
For the four dimensions of civic competence the rankings produce more regional results.

For the dimensions of citizenship values and participatory attitudes Southern and Eastern
European countries give the best performances. The explanation that we give is that due to the
fact that there is greater instability in these countries and a more recent introduction of
democracy that this provide the incentive for young people and a greater sense of purpose
towards democracy in contrast to stable, active and long standing democratic countries like
Sweden. Eastern Europe performed less well on social justice and cognition and this we
hypothesise, for the case of social justice, is due to the previous experience of Communism
which imposed the ideology of equality on the young people within their education system
and now the young people reject these ideals. Second, and in the case of the low results for
cognition, the reason given is that Communist education did not teach democratic education
and back in 1999 the new education system was not yet ready for fully developing young
people’s capabilities on knowledge and skills for democracy. Further and more in-depth

17
 The Proceedings of IRC 2008

research is needed in order to give further explanation to these results.

References
Ashkanasy, N., Wilerom, C., and Mark Peterson, M. (2004). Organisational culture and climate.
London: Sage.
Audigier, F. (2000) Basic Concepts and Core Competencies for Education for Democratic Citizenship.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe publishing.
Abs, H. and Veldhuis, R. (2006) Indicators on active citizenship - the social, cultural and economic
domain.
Buk-Berge, E. (2006) Missed opportunities: the IEA’s study of civic education and civic education in
Post-communist countries. Comparative Education Vol.42, No. 4 pp533-548
Campbell, D. (2006) What Is Education’s Impact on Civic and Social Engagement? In Richard
Desjardins and Tom Schuller (eds) Measuring the Effects of Education on Health and Civic
Engagement Proceedings of the Copenhagen Symposium. Pairs: CERI, OECD.
Coe, R. (2002). It’s the effect size, stupid: What effect size is and why it is important. Paper presented at
the annual conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Exeter,
England, 12-14 September 2002.
Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. NY: Academic Press.
Education Council (2001) Report from the Education Council to the European Council. "The concrete
future objectives of education and training systems" Brussels, 14 February 2001. Brussels:
European Council.
European Commission (2007) Staff Working Document: Progress Towards the Lisbon Objectives in
Education and Training, indicators and benchmarks. Luxembourg: Official publications of the
European Communities.
European Commission (1998) Education and Active Citizenship in the European Union Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg (under the authorship of the
European Commission; available in all official languages)
Education Council (2007) Council conclusions on a coherent framework of indicators and benchmarks
for monitoring progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training Brussels:
Council of the European Union
Education Council (2006) Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of 18
December 2006 on key competencies for lifelong learning. Brussels: Official Journal of
the European Union, 30.12.2006
Eurydice (2005) Citizenship Education at School in Europe. Belgium: Eurydice.
DeSeCo (2005) Definition and Selection of Key Competencies: Executive Summary (30-Jun-2005) Web
document: http://www.portal-stat.admin.ch/deseco/news.htm (assessed 11 June, 2007)
Goldstein, H., & Healy, M.J.R. (1995). The graphical presentation of a collection of means. Journal of

18
 The Proceedings of IRC 2008

the Royal Statistical Society, Ser. A, 158, 175-177.

Hoskins, B. (2006): Draft framework on Indicators for Active Citizenship. Ispra: CRELL.
Hoskins, B., Jesinghaus, J., Mascherini, M., Munda, G., Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Van Nijlen, D., Vidoni,
D and Villalba, E. (2006) Measuring Active Citizenship in Europe. Ispra: European
Commission Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen EUR 22530 EN.
Husfeldt, V., Barber, C., & Torney-Purta, J. (2005). Students’ social attitudes and expected political
participation: New scales in the enhanced database of the IEA Civic Education Study. College
Park, MD: Civic Education Data and Researcher Services. [Available:
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~iea]
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (2007) International Civic
and Citizenship Education Study: Assessment Framework. (The Netherlands: International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.)
Mainguet, C. and Baye, A. (2006) Defining a framework of indicators to measure the social outcomes
of learning. In Richard Desjardins and Tom Schuller (eds) Measuring the Effects of Education
on Health and Civic Engagement Proceedings of the Copenhagen Symposium. Pairs: CERI,
OECD.
Mascherini, M., Saltelli, A. and Vidoni, D. (forthcoming) Participation in Europe: One-Size-Fits-None.
Ispra: European Commission Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen EUR
EN.
Makrinioti, D.& Solomon, J. (1999) The discourse of citizenship Education in Greece: National
Identity and Social Diversity. Pp 258-312 in Torney-Purta, J. Schwille, J. and Amadeo, J.
(1999) Civic Education Across Countries: Twenty-four national case studies from the IEA
Civic Education project. Delft, Netherlands: Eburon publishers.
Masters, G.N., & Wright, B.D. (1997). The Partial Credit model. In W.J. van der Linden & R.K.
Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (p.101-122). New
York/Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Ogris, G. and Westphal, S. (2006) Indicators on active citizenship - the political domain. Ispra:
European Commission.
OECD (2003). PISA 2003 technical report. Paris: OECD.
Papanastasiou, C.& Koutselini-Ioannidou (1999) National Identity in the Civic Education of Cyprus
pp161-178 in Torney-Purta, J. Schwille, J. and Amadeo, J. (1999) Civic Education Across
Countries: Twenty-four national case studies from the IEA Civic Education project. Delft,
Netherlands: Eburon publishers.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. (New York:
Simon and Schuster.)
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment test. Copenhagen: Nielsen
& Lydiche.
Rychen, D. S. (2003) Key competencies: Meeting important challenges in life in Rychen D.S. and

19
 The Proceedings of IRC 2008

Salganik, L. (Eds.) Key Competencies for a Successful Life and a Well-functioning Society.
Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber
Rychen, D.S. (2004) Key competencies for all: an overarching conceptual frame of reference. In
Rychen, D. S. and Tiana, A. (Eds) Developing Key Competencies in Education: Some lessons
from International and National Experience. Geneva: UNESCO / International Bureau of
Education
Rychen, D. S. and Tiana, A. (2004) Developing Key Competencies in Education: Some lessons from
International and National Experience. Geneva: UNESCO / International Bureau of
Education
Snijders, T.A.B., & Bosker, R.J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced
multilevel modeling. London: Sage.
Schultz, W. and Sibberns, H. (2004) IEA Civic Education Study Technical Report. Amsterdam: IEA.
Tiana, A. (2004) Developing key competencies in education systems: some lessons from international
studies and national experiences. In Rychen, D.S. & Tiana, A. (Eds.) Developing key
competencies in education: some lessons form international and national experiences. Geneva:
UNESCO / International Bureau of Education
Torney-Purta, J., Barber, C., & Richardson, W. K. (2004). Trust in government related institutions and
political engagement among adolescents in six countries. Acta Politica, 380-406..
Torney-Purta, J., Richardson, W., & Barber, C. (2004). Adolescents’ trust and civic participation in the
United States: Analysis of data from the IEA Civic Education Study (Fact sheet, 8 pages).
College Park, MD: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement,
University of Maryland, College Park.
Torney-Purta, J. Schwille, J. and Amadeo, J. (1999) Civic Education Across Countries: Twenty-four
national case studies from the IEA Civic Education project. Amsterdam: IEA.
Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H. and Schulz, W. (2001) Citizenship and education in
Twenty-eight Countries: civic knowledge and engagement at age 14. Amsterdam: IEA. Also
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~iea.
Van Deth, J. Montero, J. and Westholm, A. (2007) Citizenship and Involvement in European
Democracies: A Comparative Analysis. (London: Routledge.)
Veldhuis, R. (1997) Education for Democratic Citizenship: dimensions of citizenship, core
competences, variables and international activities. Strasbourg, Council of Europe
Wu, M.L., Adams, R.J., & Wilson, M.R. (1997). ACER ConQuest: Multi-aspect software (computer
program). Camberwell, Vic.: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Cattell, R.B. (1966). Multivariate Behavioral Research and the Integrative Challenge. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 1, 4-23.
Kaiser, H.F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.
Kim, J.O., & Mueller, C.W. (1978). Introduction to factor analysis: What it is and how to do it.

20
 The Proceedings of IRC 2008

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences
Series, No. 13.
Thurstone, L.L. (1935). The Vectors Of Mind Multiple Factor Analysis For The Isolation Of Primary
Traits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

21
Figure 1: Working model of active citizenship
 Table 1: Ideal list of civic competence
Knowledge:
€ Key elements of the political and legal system (human rights, social rights and duties,
Parliamentary government, the importance of voting) (local, national, European
level)
€ Basic institutions of democracy, political parties, election programmes and the
proceedings of elections
€ The role of the media in personal and social life
€ Social relations in society
€ The history and cultural heritage of own country; of predominance of certain norms
and values
€ Different cultures in the school and in the country
€ Main events, trends and change agents of national, European and world history
€ The function and work of voluntary groups
€ Knowledge on current political issues
Skills:
€ To be able to evaluate a position or decision, take a position and defend a position
€ To distinguish a statement of fact from an opinion
€ To resolve conflicts in a peaceful way
€ To interpret the media messages (interests and value systems that are involved etc.)
(critical analysis of the media)
€ To be capable to critically examine information
€ To possess communication skills (to be able to present in verbal and/or written
manner your ideas)
€ To be able to monitor and influence policies and decisions including through voting
€ To use the media in an active way (not as consumer but as producer of media
content)
€ To build coalitions; to co-operate; to interact
€ To be able to live and work in a multicultural environment
Attitudes:
€ To feel responsible for your decisions and actions in particular in relationship to
other citizens
€ To feel confident to engage politically
€ To trust in and have loyalty towards democratic principles and institutions
€ To be open to difference, change of own opinion and compromise
Values:
€ Acceptance of the rule of law
€ A belief in social justice and the equality and equal treatment of citizens
€ Respect for differences including gender and religious differences
€ Negative towards prejudice, racism and discrimination
€ Respect for human rights (freedom, diversity and equality)
€ Respect for the dignity and freedom of every individual
€ Tolerance towards difference
€ A belief in the importance of democracy
€ A belief in the need to preserve the environment
Intended behaviour:
€ To be active in the political community
€ To be active in the community
€ To be active in civil society
Table 2: Scales developed with IEA CivEd dataset
Knowledge
KNOWL € Knowledge of content
Skills
SKILS € Skills in interpretation of material with civic or political content
Concepts: normative views about democracy •
DEM‚ € Democratic rights
• norms of good citizenship:
CTCON € Conventional citizenship
CTSOC € Social-movement-related citizenship
• responsibilities the government should have
GOVSOC €Economy-related
GOVEC € Society-related
Attitudes:
Trust towards institutions
TRUST € Government-related institutions
MEDIA*+ - Trust in media
Towards Nation
PROTC*+ - Protective of oneƒs nation
PATRI € Positive attitude towards one nation
Toward women, minorities and anti-democratic groups
WOMRT € Attitudes toward womenƒs political and economic right
MINOR*+ € Attitude toward opportunities for minorities
ADGR*+ € Attitude toward political rights for anti-democratic groups
Toward immigration
IMMIG € Attitudes toward immigrantsƒ rights
EFFIC+ € Internal political efficacy
Actions:
School participation
CONFS - Confidence in value of participation at school
SCON*‚ € Self-confidence in oneƒs own participation
Expected Participatory activity
POLAT € Political activities
PROTE*+€ Protest activities
VOTE+ € Expectations associated with voting
COMM+ € Expectations of community participation
Teaching styles:
CCLIM € Open climate for classroom discussion
LECTR* - Lecturing styles
*Scales identified but not developed by IEA
+
Scales identified and developed by CEDARS
‚
Scale identified and developed by Authors
 Table 3: Rotated Component Matrix for civic competence scales
Dimensions Scale Labels Component
1 2 3 4

Values CONVENTIONAL CITIZENSHIP CTCON -0.02 0.02 0.26 0.82

SOCIAL-MOVEMENT-RELATED
CTSOC 0.07 0.25 0.03 0.82
CITIZENSHIP
DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS DEM 0.69 0.19 0.04 0.16
ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMENS
WOMRT 0.32 0.70 -0.14 -0.04
POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS
ATTITUDES TOWARDS MINORITIES MINOR 0.14 0.72 0.01 0.12
CONFIDENCE IN PARTICIPATING AT
Attitudes CONFS 0.11 0.66 0.13 0.18
SCHOOL
INTERNAL POLITICAL EFFICACY EFFIC 0.15 -0.08 0.75 0.11
Intended EXPECTATIONS OF COMMUNITY
COMM -0.18 0.45 0.46 0.20
behaviour PARTICIPATION
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES POLAT -0.02 -0.03 0.76 0.08

SELF-CONFIDENT PARTICIPATION SCON -0.01 0.46 0.54 0.03

EXPECTATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH
VOTE 0.40 0.25 0.41 0.24
VOTING
Knowledge KNOWLEDGE OF CONTENT KNOWL 0.88 0.07 0.05 -0.02
SKILLS IN INTERPRETATION OF MATERIAL
Skills SKILS 0.85 0.10 -0.01 -0.10
WITH CIVIC OR POLITICAL CONETNT
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Rotation converged in 6 iterations.
 Table 4: Cronbach’s alpha of identified constructs in CivEd data
Domains N. of scales Cronbach's Alpha
(International (European
sample, all Union
countries) countries)
Citizenship values (cval) 2 0.642 0.645
Social Justice (socj) 3 0.622 0.618
Participatory attitudes (parta) 5 0.652 0.638
Cognition about democratic 3 0.779 0.786
institutions (cogd)

Figure 2: Structure and weighting scheme for the Civic Competence Composite Index
Figure 3: Civic Competence Composite Indicator in Europe (Data 1999/Age group 14)
 Table 5: Statistical significance, pairwise comparison country scores, civic competence composite indicator (CCCI)
Average

ROM

SWE
GRC

NOR

HUN

BGR
HKG

ENG
DNK

CHE

RUS
DEU
COL
CYP

USA

AUS

SVN
POL

CHL
PRT
SVK

CZE

BFR

EST
LVA
LTU
FIN
ITA
SD

CYP 642 102 - € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

GRC 623 112 € - • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
USA 598 123 ‚ ‚ - € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
POL 594 107 ‚ ‚ € - € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
COL 585 99 ‚ ‚ € € - € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
SVK 569 93 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € - € € € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
PRT 565 98 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € - € € € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
NOR 562 110 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € - € € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
ITA 560 103 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € - € € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
ROM 558 98 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € - € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
CHL 557 100 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € - € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
HKG 550 105 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € - € € € € € € • • • • • • • • • •
AUS 547 107 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € - € € € € € • • • • • • • • • •
SWE 541 110 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € - € € € € € € € € • • • • • •
DNK 535 106 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € - € € € € € € € € € € • • •
FIN 533 100 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € - € € € € € € € € € • • •
ENG 533 106 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € - € € € € € € € € • • •
LTU 533 92 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € - € € € € € € € • • •
SVN 524 94 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € - € € € € € € € • •
HUN 523 87 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € - € € € € € € • •
DEU 521 98 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € € - € € € € € € •
CHE 520 94 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € € € - € € € € € •
BGR 519 109 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € € € - € € € € •
RUS 519 87 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € € € € - € € € •
CZE 516 95 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € € € € € - € € •
BFR 512 107 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € € - € €
LVA 502 87 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € - €
EST 494 86 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € -
• Scores significantly higher than comparison country
€ No statistically significant difference
‚ Scores significantly lower than comparison country
 Map of the Civic Competence Composite Indicator Results (Data 1999/Age group 14)

Citizenship values Participatory attitudes

Social Justice Cognition about democratic institutions

(Attitudes towards Women & Minorities)
Figure 4: Map of the Civic Competence Composite Indicator Results (Data 1999/Age group 14)
 Table 6: Statistical significance, pairwise comparison country scores, Citizenship values
Average

ROM

SWE
GRC

NOR
BGR

HUN

HKG

ENG
RUS

CHE

DNK
DEU
COL
CYP

USA

AUS
SVN
CHL

POL

PRT

SVK

CZE

BFR
EST
LVA
LTU

FIN
ITA
SD

GRC 676 134 - € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

CYP 669 129 € - € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
COL 663 133 € € - € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
ROM 645 137 ‚ € € - € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
LTU 628 139 ‚ ‚ ‚ € - € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
CHL 626 126 ‚ ‚ ‚ € € - € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
POL 606 119 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € - € € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
PRT 604 110 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € - € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
SVK 598 118 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € - € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
USA 597 156 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € - € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
ITA 590 119 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € - € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
BGR 581 149 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € - € € € € € • • • • • • • • • • •
HUN 567 117 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € - € € € € € € € € • • • • • • •
NOR 563 117 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € - € € € € € € € € • • • • • •
RUS 561 100 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € - € € € € € € € • • • • • •
DEU 558 110 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € - € € € € € € • • • • • •
HKG 557 122 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € - € € € € € • • • • • •
LVA 552 106 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € - € € € € € • • • • •
CHE 547 111 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € - € € € € € • • • •
SWE 546 126 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € € - € € € € • • • •
SVN 542 133 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € € € - € € € € € • •
CZE 537 115 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € € € - € € € € € •
DNK 525 106 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € - € € € € •
AUS 524 121 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € - € € € •
ENG 518 107 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € - € € €
EST 516 104 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € - € €
BFR 510 114 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € - €
FIN 496 105 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € -
• Scores significantly higher than comparison country
€ No statistically significant difference
‚ Scores significantly lower than comparison country
 Table 7: Statistical significance, pairwise comparison country scores, Social justice

Average

ROM
SWE
NOR

GRC

HUN

BGR
ENG

HKG
DNK

CHE

RUS
DEU
COL
CYP

USA

AUS

SVN
POL

CHL
PRT

CZE

SVK
BFR

EST

LVA
LTU
FIN

ITA
SD
CYP 707 144 - • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
PRT 680 140 ‚ - € € € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
COL 678 142 ‚ € - € € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
USA 678 169 ‚ € € - € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
NOR 678 153 ‚ € € € - € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
ENG 671 157 ‚ € € € € - € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
POL 668 154 ‚ € € € € € - € € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
GRC 667 149 ‚ € € € € € € - € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
SWE 655 148 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € - € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
DNK 654 150 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € - € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
AUS 649 156 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € - € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
FIN 649 141 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € - € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
CHL 645 131 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € - € • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
BFR 630 162 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € - € € € € € € € • • • • • • •
LTU 620 128 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € - € € € € € € € € € • • • •
CZE 617 126 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € - € € € € € € € € • • • •
CHE 616 142 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € - € € € € € € € • • • •
ITA 616 132 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € - € € € € € € • • • •
SVK 616 122 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € - € € € € € • • • •
HKG 615 144 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € - € € € € • • • •
ROM 613 135 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € € - € € € € • • •
EST 608 117 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € € - € € € • • •
SVN 604 132 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € € € - € € € € •
DEU 603 140 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € € € € - € € € •
RUS 593 116 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € - € € •
HUN 586 119 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € - € €
BGR 583 154 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € - €
LVA 571 116 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € -
• Scores significantly higher than comparison country
€ No statistically significant difference
‚ Scores significantly lower than comparison country
 Table 8: Statistical significance, pairwise comparison country scores, Participatory attitudes
Average

ROM

SWE
GRC

NOR
HUN

BGR
HKG

ENG
RUS

DNK

CHE
DEU
COL
CYP

USA

AUS

SVN
CHL

POL

PRT

SVK

CZE
BFR

EST
LVA

LTU

FIN
ITA
SD

CYP 613 130 - € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

COL 604 135 € - • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
GRC 572 129 ‚ ‚ - € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
CHL 567 149 ‚ ‚ € - € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
ROM 558 133 ‚ ‚ € € - € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
POL 550 143 ‚ ‚ € € € - € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
PRT 540 126 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € - € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
USA 539 159 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € - € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
SVK 539 126 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € - • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
ITA 511 133 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ - € € € € € € € • • • • • • • • • • •
LVA 503 141 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € - € € € € € € € • • • • • • • • • •
HKG 501 146 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € - € € € € € € • • • • • • • • • •
AUS 499 152 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € - € € € € € € € • • • • • • • •
SVN 495 128 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € - € € € € € € € • • • • • • •
HUN 493 126 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € - € € € € € € • • • • • • •
NOR 490 149 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € - € € € € € € • • • • • •
RUS 490 133 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € € - € € € € € • • • • • •
BFR 481 142 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € € - € € € € € € € • • •
BGR 475 145 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € - € € € € € € € • •
DNK 474 144 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € € - € € € € € € • •
LTU 471 137 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € € - € € € € € € •
ENG 464 154 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € - € € € € € €
DEU 462 140 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € - € € € € €
CHE 456 140 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € - € € € €
EST 456 135 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € € - € € €
FIN 454 136 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € € - € €
SWE 447 152 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € - €
CZE 443 130 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € -
• Scores significantly higher than comparison country
€ No statistically significant difference
‚ Scores significantly lower than comparison country
 Table 9: Statistical significance, pairwise comparison country scores, Cognitions about democratic institutions

Average

ROM
SWE
GRC

NOR

HUN

BGR
HKG

ENG

DNK

CHE

RUS
DEU

COL
CYP

USA

AUS

SVN
POL

CHL
PRT
SVK

CZE

BFR

EST

LVA
LTU
FIN

ITA
SD
CYP 595 102 - € € € € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
GRC 593 112 € - € € € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
USA 587 123 € € - € € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
FIN 587 100 € € € - € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
POL 583 107 € € € € - € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
SVK 571 93 € € € € € - € € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
HKG 570 105 € € € € € € - € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
ITA 565 103 € € € € € € € - € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
AUS 553 107 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € - € € € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • • •
SWE 552 110 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € - € € € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • •
NOR 549 110 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € - € € € € € • • • • • • • • • • • •
CZE 538 95 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € - € € € € € € • • • • • • • • • •
ENG 529 106 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € - € € € € € • • • • • • • • • •
DNK 528 106 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € - € € € € • • • • • • • • • •
DEU 526 98 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € - € € € • • • • • • • • • •
CHE 522 94 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € - € € € € • • • • • • • •
SVN 513 94 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € - € € € € • • • • • • •
HUN 512 87 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € - € € € • • • • • • •
RUS 494 87 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € - € € € € € € • • •
BGR 493 109 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € - € € € € € • • •
BFR 486 107 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € - € € € € • • •
PRT 482 98 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € - € € € • • •
EST 469 86 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € - € € € • •
ROM 468 98 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € - € € • •
LTU 465 92 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € € € € - € € €
LVA 446 87 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € - € €
COL 437 99 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € - €
CHL 437 100 ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ € € € -
• Scores significantly higher than comparison country
€ No statistically significant difference
‚ Scores significantly lower than comparison country
 Table 10: Bivariate Pearson’s correlations at the individual level between civic competence
subdomains
Citizenship values Social Justice Participatory Cognitions
(V/A) attitudes democratic inst.
Citizenship values -
Social Justice 0.275** -
(V/A) N= 26639
Participatory 0.388** 0.337** -
attitudes N= 23851 N= 26784
Cognitions 0.077** 0.343** 0.185** -
democratic inst. N= 27237 N= 26563 N= 23801
** Correlation is significant at the .01-level