Analyse the validity and reliability of two indicators of human development.

“Physical geography is the main reason why some places are less connected than others.” Discuss this statement.

Marks should be allocated according to the paper 3 part A markbands. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials. 

Possibilities for analysis include the human development index (HDI), the gender equality index and GDP per capita or infant mortality. One approach might be to analyse two components of the HDI (eg life expectancy and literacy). Another approach might be to analyse the HDI in its entirety along with a second indicator, such as GDP per capita. Either approach is acceptable.

For full marks to be awarded, all of the points raised need not be explicitly categorized as either validity or reliability issues. It is sufficient to provide a wide-ranging critique which infers concern with both reliability and validity.

If more than two indicators are analysed, credit the two which are dealt with best.

Possible issues associated with their use include:

• the accuracy of the data (a reliability issue) and whether they are verifiable
• the comparability of data between countries (a reliability issue), methodological issues (criticisms of GDP or HDI formulae) (a reliability issue)
• the extent to which they genuinely show variations in development, for example HDI is widely viewed as a good measure because it takes into account three different variables (a validity issue)
• varying perspectives on the genuine importance (validity) of what is being measured (eg, money, happiness, gender equality)
• the importance (validity) of a particular measure (eg literacy) because of how it impacts on other aspects of development such as income/happiness.

Good answers may apply (AO2) a wider range of knowledge and understanding (AO1) in a well-structured way (AO4). One approach might be to provide a structured systematic analysis which clearly separates validity and reliability issues. Another approach might be to analyse the two chosen indicators using a wider range of critical points with strong supporting evidence and data.

For 4–6 marks, expect some outlining of one or two indicators/measures. Response is either partial, narrow or lacks supporting evidence.

For 7–9 marks, expect a structured, evidenced analysis of:
• either two indicators of human development (dealt with in a balanced way)
• or the issues of validity and reliability (these may be implied rather than explicit; do not expect balance)

For 10–12 marks, expect both of these traits.

Credit all content in line with the markbands. Marks should be allocated according to the paper 3 part B markbands. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials. Credit unexpected approaches wherever relevant.

Physical geography may include consideration of: whether different places are relatively isolated; maritime and continental places; natural resource endowment; various site and climatic factors. Connectivity has multiple dimensions (for example, inclusion in transport networks or internet connectivity). Places can be identified as local areas or states, or at other scales.

Answers which largely ignore/sideline the role of physical geography and instead discuss the role of non-physical factors may still reach Level 9-12 if they meet other mark band criteria well. However, they are unlikely to reach Level 13-16.

Possible applied themes (AO2) include knowledge and understanding (AO1) of:

• importance of oil resources for connected OPEC states (4.1)
• connected global superpowers and reasons for this (4.1)
• economic migration rules and connectivity of destination states (4.2)
• global data flow patterns (4.3)
• natural resource availability (4.3)
• geographic isolation at varying scales (4.3)
• networking via microfinance (5.1)
• cultural diffusion between places (5.2)
• global diaspora (5.2)
• protectionism and trade restrictions (5.3)
• implications of global shift or reshoring for connectivity (6.2-6.3).

Good answers may synthesize (AO3a) three or more of these themes in a well-structured (AO4) way.

Good answers may additionally offer a critical evaluation (AO3b) of the statement which discusses the extent to which physical factors are most important in different places and contexts. Another approach might be to critically discuss the relative importance of physical and human influences on connectivity at the national or more local scale (eg, isolated rural areas within well-connected states). Another approach might be to examine changes in relative importance over time and the possibility that physical barriers might be overcome.

For 5–8 marks, expect some outlining of two relevant themes. Response is either partial, narrow or lacks supporting evidence.

For 9–12 marks, expect:

• either a structured synthesis which links together several well-evidenced themes from the Guide
• or a critical conclusion (or on-going evaluation) informed by geographical concepts and/or perspectives.

For 13–16 marks, expect both of these traits. 

Popular indicators of development chosen by candidates included the Human Development Index, Gross Domestic Product per capita, the Gender Inequality Index and life expectancy. The majority provided satisfactory outlining of their chosen measures as part of their response. In some cases, a good analysis of validity and reliability was additionally provided. The former was usually dealt with by explaining the broad value and importance of each chosen measure. In particular, candidates pointed out that Gross Domestic Product per capita provides an important guide to the wealth of nations and the ability of governments to provide education and health care, which are universally valued services. The most popular themes pertaining to reliability included concerns with the accuracy of data and issues arising from the use of crude averaging. Weaker responses scoring between 4 and 6 marks showed little or no understanding of what is meant by validity and reliability in relation to development indicators.

This essay title lends itself well to synthetic writing: most candidates were able to link together a series of case studies showing why different countries or local places are more or less connected than others. The best answers selected their evidence carefully in order to provide a balanced review which gave equal weighting to physical and non-physical factors. Typically, an account was provided of landlocked states and isolated islands; these examples were then contrasted with politically-isolated societies. Weak answers (scoring between 5 and 8 marks) tended to lack specific details and instead presented generalized ideas about the difficulties of communicating with "mountainous places". In contrast, high-scoring answers reaching the top markband added a conceptual framework to their discussion. For example, some candidates discussed the validity of the statement at varying scales. They wrote about isolated countries such as North Korea but also included far more localized examples, including particular towns such as Todmorden in the UK, where local sourcing of food has meant relatively fewer food commodity movements. In this case, the reason for reduced connectivity is a civil-society sustainability movement, as opposed to physical geography.