Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care

Contents:

Author Info

  • Mandy Ryan
  • Angela Bate
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    In the absence of revealed preference behaviour, economists use experimental techniques to estimate welfare changes. Such an approach relies on a number of assumptions concerning individual behaviour. This paper uses a discrete choice experiment to test three of these assumptions - rationality, continuity and symmetry. The experiment was carried out with users of a rheumatology clinic in the Grampian area of Scotland and was concerned with preferences for a specialist-nurse-led clinic. Two tests of 'rationality' were included in the experiment. Tests were carried out to see if respondents always chose on the basis of their preferred staffing, suggesting discontinuities in the utility function. The axiom of symmetry was tested using a split sample design, with respondents divided into two groups. Each group received a different questionnaire that varied with respect to the order of the choices. Over 30% of respondents provided at least one 'irrational' response. Such respondents did not differ significantly in their characteristics from 'rational' responses, suggesting that utility estimates would not be biased if this group were excluded from the analysis. Seventeen per cent of respondents showed signs of having non-compensatory utility functions. Evidence was found to support the axiom of symmetry. Future work should explore the axioms of rationality and continuity in more detail.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&doi=10.1080/135048501750041312&magic=repec&7C&7C8674ECAB8BB840C6AD35DC6213A474B5
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Applied Economics Letters.

    Volume (Year): 8 (2001)
    Issue (Month): 1 ()
    Pages: 59-63

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:taf:apeclt:v:8:y:2001:i:1:p:59-63

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEL20

    Order Information:
    Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RAEL20

    Related research

    Keywords:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dachary-Bernard, Jeanne, 2012. "Preferences, rational choices and economic valuation: Some empirical tests," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 198-206.
    2. Danny Campbell & George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2006. "Lexicographic preferences for rural environmental landscape improvements: implications on individual-specific willingness to pay estimates," Working Papers 0610, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    3. Harry Telser & Karolin Becker & Peter Zweifel, 2008. "Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 283-298, October.
    4. Neuman, Tzahi & Neuman, Einat & Neuman, Shoshana, 2010. "Explorations of the effect of experience on preferences for a health-care service," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 407-419, June.
    5. Karolin Becker & Peter Zweifel, 2008. "Age and Choice in Health Insurance," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 27-40, January.
    6. Paul Scuffham & Jennifer Whitty & Matthew Taylor & Ruth Saxby, 2010. "Health system choice," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 89-97, March.
    7. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    8. Jens Hougaard & Tue Tjur & Lars Østerdal, 2012. "On the meaningfulness of testing preference axioms in stated preference discrete choice experiments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 409-417, August.
    9. Begoña Álvarez & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez, 2009. "Patients’ self-interest bias: Empirical evidence from a priority-setting experiment," Working Papers 0903, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
    10. Schwappach, David L.B. & Strasmann, Thomas J., 2006. ""Quick and dirty numbers"?: The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of preferences for resource allocation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 432-448, May.
    11. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    12. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson & Vikki Entwistle, 2009. "Rationalising the 'irrational': a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 321-336.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:apeclt:v:8:y:2001:i:1:p:59-63. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.