IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

A comparison of the reliability of the take-it-or-leave-it and the bidding game approaches to estimating willingness-to-pay in a rural population in West Africa

Listed author(s):
  • Dong, Hengjin
  • Kouyate, Bocar
  • Cairns, John
  • Sauerborn, Rainer
Registered author(s):

    The test-retest reliability of the bidding game and the take-it-or-leave-it (TIOLI) approaches to eliciting willingness-to-pay (WTP) are compared. A random sample of households in the Nouna area of Burkina Faso were interviewed twice with an interval of around 4-5 weeks. One thousand one hundred and eight individuals were asked their individual WTP for community-based health insurance. Three hundred and forty eight of these individuals were household heads who were in addition asked about their WTP for health insurance for the whole household. Median and the mean WTP were higher in the test than in the retest. Despite these differences both methods displayed moderate to good reliability (kappa values ranged from 0.467 to 0.621, Spearman correlations ranged from 0.653 to 0.701 and Pearson correlations ranged from 0.593 to 0.675). There was some evidence that the bidding game was more reliable than the TIOLI method. This study is based on larger sample size than previous studies and also is one of the first studies of the reliability of WTP in a developing country.

    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:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 56 (2003)
    Issue (Month): 10 (May)
    Pages: 2181-2189

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:10:p:2181-2189
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal:

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

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

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:10:p:2181-2189. 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: (Dana Niculescu)

    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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.