This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Mandy Ryan (Health Economics Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK)
Verity Watson (Health Economics Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

This study presents the first comparison of willingness to pay estimates derived from the payment card (PC) contingent valuation and discrete choice experiment (DCE) methods. A within-sample experiment was used to elicit women's preferences for Chlamydia screening. The willingness to pay estimate derived from the DCE was larger than that derived from the PC. To investigate why the willingness to pay estimates were different, a range of validity tests were conducted. Both methods produced theoretically valid results, and there was no difference in the reported difficulty of completing the tasks. Evidence of a prominence effect was found in the PC responses. Responses to the DCE satisfied tests of non-satiation. Responses to both methods were compared with revealed preference data. There were significant differences between stated screening intention in both methods and actual screening uptake. Future work should address the external validity of stated preference methods. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.1364
File Format: text/html
File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Health Economics.

Volume (Year): 18 (2009)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
Pages: 389-401
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:18:y:2009:i:4:p:389-401

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Liljas, Bengt & Blumenschein, Karen, 2000. "On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 53-70, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Mandy Ryan, 2004. "A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 291-296. [Downloadable!]
  3. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1987. "The impact of grouping coarseness in alternative grouped-data regression models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 37-57, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  4. Ryan, Mandy & Scott, David A. & Donaldson, Cam, 2004. "Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 237-258, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Johannesson, Magnus & Johansson, Per-Olov & Löfgren, Karl-Gustaf, 1997. "On the Value of Changes in Life Expectancy: Blips versus Parametric Changes," Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 152, Stockholm School of Economics.
    Other versions:
  6. Obinna Onwujekwe & Benjamin Uzochukwu, 2004. "Stated and actual altruistic willingness to pay for insecticide-treated nets in Nigeria: validity of open-ended and binary with follow-up questions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 477-492. [Downloadable!]
  7. Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-30, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  8. Ronald G. Cummings & Laura O. Taylor, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  11. Christine A. Kennedy, 2002. "Revealed preference valuation compared to contingent valuation: radon-induced lung cancer prevention," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(7), pages 585-598. [Downloadable!]
  12. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. " Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 15(3), pages 435-62, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  13. Diamond, Peter A & Hausman, Jerry A, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  14. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  15. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  16. Hanemann, W Michael, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  17. Richard D. Smith, 2003. "Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care:a critical assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 609-628. [Downloadable!]
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? About five million pdf files are downloaded through RePEc every year.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-16.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.