IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v67y2008i12p2043-2050.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Convergent validity between a discrete choice experiment and a direct, open-ended method: Comparison of preferred attribute levels and willingness to pay estimates

Author

Listed:
  • Marjon van der Pol
  • Shiell, Alan
  • Au, Flora
  • Johnston, David
  • Tough, Suzanne

Abstract

The Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) has become increasingly popular as a method for eliciting patient or population preferences. If DCE estimates are to inform health policy, it is crucial that the answers they provide are valid. Convergent validity is tested in this paper by comparing the results of a DCE exercise with the answers obtained from direct, open-ended questions. The two methods are compared in terms of preferred attribute levels and willingness to pay (WTP) values. Face-to-face interviews were held with 292 women in Calgary, Canada. Similar values were found between the two methods with respect to preferred levels for two out of three of the attributes examined. The DCE predicted less well for levels outside the range than for levels inside the range reaffirming the importance of extensive piloting to ensure appropriate level range in DCEs. The mean WTP derived from the open-ended question was substantially lower than the mean derived from the DCE. However, the two sets of willingness to pay estimates were consistent with each other in that individuals who were willing to pay more in the open-ended question were also willing to pay more in the DCE. The difference in mean WTP values between the two approaches (direct versus DCE) demonstrates the importance of continuing research into the different biases present across elicitation methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Marjon van der Pol & Shiell, Alan & Au, Flora & Johnston, David & Tough, Suzanne, 2008. "Convergent validity between a discrete choice experiment and a direct, open-ended method: Comparison of preferred attribute levels and willingness to pay estimates," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(12), pages 2043-2050, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:67:y:2008:i:12:p:2043-2050
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(08)00502-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    2. Ryan, Mandy & Netten, Ann & Skatun, Diane & Smith, Paul, 2006. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome--An application to social care for older people," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 927-944, September.
    3. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Thesis Thursday: David Mott
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2019-04-18 06:00:33

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:67:y:2008:i:12:p:2043-2050. 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). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.