IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v11y2002i2p117-127.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing the convergent validity of the contingent valuation and travel cost methods in valuing the benefits of health care

Author

Listed:
  • Philip M. Clarke

    (Health Economics Research Centre, Institute of Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK)

Abstract

In this study, the convergent validity of the contingent valuation method (CVM) and travel cost method (TCM) is tested by comparing estimates of the willingness to pay (WTP) for improving access to mammographic screening in rural areas of Australia. It is based on a telephone survey of 458 women in 19 towns, in which they were asked about their recent screening behaviour and their WTP to have a mobile screening unit visit their nearest town. After eliminating missing data and other non-usable responses the contingent valuation experiment and travel cost model were based on information from 372 and 319 women, respectively. Estimates of the maximum WTP for the use of mobile screening units were derived using both methods and compared. The highest mean WTP estimated using the TCM was $83.10 (95% C.I. $99.06-$68.53), which is significantly less than the estimate of $148.09 ($131.13-$166.60) using the CVM. This could be due to the CVM estimates also reflecting non-use values such as altruism, or a range of potential biases that are known to affect both methods. Further tests of validity are required in order to gain a greater understanding of the relationship between these two methods of estimating WTP. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip M. Clarke, 2002. "Testing the convergent validity of the contingent valuation and travel cost methods in valuing the benefits of health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 117-127.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:11:y:2002:i:2:p:117-127
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.651
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.651
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1995. "Evaluating Health Risks," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521478786.
    2. Schkade David A. & Payne John W., 1994. "How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 88-109, January.
    3. Bengt Kristrom, 1990. "A Non-Parametric Approach to the Estimation of Welfare Measures in Discrete Response Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 66(2), pages 135-139.
    4. Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-130, January.
    5. Culyer, A J, 1971. "The Nature of the Commodity 'Health Care' and Its Efficient Allocation," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 189-211, July.
    6. Richard T. Carson & Nicholas E. Flores & Kerry M. Martin & Jennifer L. Wright, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 80-99.
    7. Richard C. Ready & Jean C. Buzby & Dayuan Hu, 1996. "Differences between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Value Estimates," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 397-411.
    8. Cauley, Stephen Day, 1987. "The Time Price of Medical Care," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(1), pages 59-66, February.
    9. Holmes Thomas P. & Kramer Randall A., 1995. "An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 121-132, July.
    10. Alan Diener & Bernie O'Brien & Amiram Gafni, 1998. "Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 313-326.
    11. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1995. "Evaluating Health Risks," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521472852.
    12. Shogren, Jason F. & Seung Y. Shin & Dermot J. Hayes & James B. Kliebenstein, 1994. "Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 255-270, March.
    13. Philip Clarke, 2000. "Valuing the benefits of mobile mammographic screening units using the contingent valuation method," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(13), pages 1647-1655.
    14. Clarke, Philip M., 1998. "Cost-benefit analysis and mammographic screening: a travel cost approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 767-787, December.
    15. Alan Randall, 1994. "Difficulty with the Travel Cost Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(1), pages 88-96.
    16. Nyquist, Hans, 1992. "Optimal Designs of Discrete Response Experiments in Contingent Valuation Studies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 74(3), pages 559-563, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Bernard van den Berg & Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell, 2007. "Monetary valuation of informal care: the well-being valuation method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1227-1244.
    2. Longo, Alberto & Hutchinson, W. George & Hunter, Ruth F. & Tully, Mark A. & Kee, Frank, 2015. "Demand response to improved walking infrastructure: A study into the economics of walking and health behaviour change," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 107-116.
    3. Borghi, Josephine & Shrestha, Daya L. & Shrestha, Deepa & Jan, Stephen, 2007. "Using focus groups to develop contingent valuation scenarios--A case study of women's groups in rural Nepal," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 531-542, February.
    4. Moger, Tron Anders & Kristiansen, Ivar Sønbø, 2012. "Direct and indirect costs of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program," HERO On line Working Paper Series 2012:3, Oslo University, Health Economics Research Programme.
    5. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson, 2009. "Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 389-401.
    6. Akbar Marvasti, 2006. "A Contingent Valuation of Customer Delay in Medical Services," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 32(1), pages 31-45, Winter.
    7. John C. Whitehead & Bruce K. Johnson & Daniel S. Mason & Gordon J. Walker, 2009. "Using Revealed and Stated Preference Data to Estimate the Demand and Consumption Benefits of Sporting Events: An Application to National Hockey League Game Trips," Working Papers 09-13, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    8. Shou-Lin Yang & Chiung-Ying Lee, 2015. "Analysis of the medical demands of elderly dementia patients considering the caregiver cost of medical accompaniment: an application of the travel cost method and altruistic utility function," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 423-439, January.
    9. Urama, Kevin C. & Hodge, Ian D., 2006. "Are stated preferences convergent with revealed preferences? Empirical evidence from Nigeria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 24-37, August.
    10. repec:eee:touman:v:42:y:2014:i:c:p:141-148 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Borghi, Josephine & Jan, Stephen, 2008. "Measuring the benefits of health promotion programmes: Application of the contingent valuation method," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 235-248, August.
    12. Jeuland, Marc & Lucas, Marcelino & Clemens, John & Whittington, Dale, 2010. "Estimating the private benefits of vaccination against cholera in Beira, Mozambique: A travel cost approach," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 310-322, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:hlthec:v:11:y:2002:i:2:p:117-127. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.