IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v14y2005i5p529-536.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inter‐rater and test–retest reliability of three contingent valuation question formats in south‐east Nigeria

Author

Listed:
  • Obinna Onwujekwe
  • Julia Fox‐Rushby
  • Kara Hanson

Abstract

This paper examines the inter‐rater and test–retest reliability of willingness to pay (WTP) for insecticide‐treated mosquito nets and net re‐treatment using the bidding game (BG), binary with follow‐up (BWFU) and a novel structured haggling technique (SH). Inter‐rater reliability was evaluated by having two sets of interviewers administer questionnaires to 109 (BG), 110 (BWFU) and 103 (SH) randomly selected household heads. Test–retest reliability was investigated by repeating interviews on 146 (BG), 161 (BWFU) and 139 (SH) household heads one month after an initial survey. Data analysis used testing of means, Spearman's correlation and Pearson's correlation coefficient for test of reliability, while non‐parametric analysis was used to determine factors causing a variation in WTP. The study was conducted in Southeast Nigeria. Inter‐rater reliability coefficients were estimated for the individual's WTP for own nets, WTP for others and WTP for re‐treatment. Using WTP for own nets as the best reliability estimate, the coefficients were high at values of 0.77 (C.I. 0.72–0.86), 0.75 (C.I. 0.64–0.81) and 0.74 (C.I. 0.63–0.82) in the BG, BWFU and SH, respectively. In test–retest reliability coefficients, the coefficients for WTP for own nets were low‐to‐moderate at values of 0.51 (C.I. 0.40–0.62), 0.41 (C.I. 0.28–0.53) and 0.56 (C.I. 0.41–0.65) for the BG, BWFU and SH groups, respectively. Factors such as gender, change in income, unplanned expenditures, stated WTP in first survey, time‐to‐think, external information, and subjecting respondents to more than one interview explained the lower test–retest reliability coefficients. We conclude that the CVM was reliable in the study area and the question formats had similar levels of reliability. The lower coefficients in the test–retest reliability were due to the influence of factors affecting demand that had changed in the intervening period. Standard formats for determining reliability within CVM should be developed for easy comparison of results from different studies. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Obinna Onwujekwe & Julia Fox‐Rushby & Kara Hanson, 2005. "Inter‐rater and test–retest reliability of three contingent valuation question formats in south‐east Nigeria," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 529-536, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:14:y:2005:i:5:p:529-536
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.928
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.928
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.928?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark S. Thompson & J. Leighton Read & Matthew Liang, 1984. "Feasibility of Willingness-to-Pay Measurement in Chronic Arthritis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 4(2), pages 195-215, June.
    2. Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Robert Wright, 2003. "Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 3-16, January.
    3. Dong, Hengjin & Kouyate, Bocar & Cairns, John & Sauerborn, Rainer, 2003. "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," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(10), pages 2181-2189, May.
    4. Paul Clay Sorum, 1999. "Measuring Patient Preferences by Willingness to Pay to Avoid," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(1), pages 27-37, January.
    5. Stephen D. Reiling & Kevin J. Boyle & Marcia L. Phillips & Mark W. Anderson, 1990. "Temporal Reliability of Contingent Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 66(2), pages 128-134.
    6. Loomis, John B., 1990. "Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent valuation techniques," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 78-85, January.
    7. Thomas H. Stevens & homas A. More & Ronald J. Glass, 1994. "Interpretation and Temporal Stability of CV Bids for Wildlife Existence: A Panel Study," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(3), pages 355-363.
    8. Whittington, Dale & Smith, V. Kerry & Okorafor, Apia & Okore, Augustine & Liu, Jin Long & McPhail, Alexander, 1992. "Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: A developing country application," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 205-225, May.
    9. Bernie O'Brien & Jose Luis Viramontes, 1994. "Willingness to Pay," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(3), pages 289-297, 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. Kangethe, Anne & Franic, Duska M. & Corso, Phaedra S., 2016. "Comparing the validity of the payment card and structured haggling willingness to pay methods: The case of a diabetes prevention program in rural Kenya," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 86-96.
    2. Mehmet Kutluay & Roy Brouwer & Richard S. J. Tol, 2019. "Valuing malaria morbidity: results from a global meta-analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 301-321, July.
    3. Debby Helvoort-Postulart & Carmen Dirksen & Alfons Kessels & Jos Engelshoven & M. Myriam Hunink, 2009. "A comparison between willingness to pay and willingness to give up time," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(1), pages 81-91, February.
    4. Obinna Onwujekwe & Kara Hanson & Julia Fox‐Rushby, 2006. "Some indicators of socio‐economic status may not be reliable and use of indices with these data could worsen equity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 639-644, June.
    5. Gebeyehu Fetene & Søren Olsen & Ole Bonnichsen, 2014. "Disentangling the Pure Time Effect From Site and Preference Heterogeneity Effects in Benefit Transfer: An Empirical Investigation of Transferability," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(4), pages 583-611, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John C. Whitehead & Thomas J. Hoban, 1999. "Testing for Temporal Reliability in Contingent Valuation with Time for Changes in Factors Affecting Demand," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(3), pages 453-465.
    2. Jorgensen, Bradley S. & Syme, Geoffrey J. & Smith, Leigh M. & Bishop, Brian J., 2004. "Random error in willingness to pay measurement: A multiple indicators, latent variable approach to the reliability of contingent values," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 41-59, February.
    3. Gonzalez, Matias & Leon, Carmelo J., 2003. "Consumption process and multiple valuation of landscape attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 159-169, June.
    4. Loureiro, Maria L. & Loomis, John, 2017. "How Sensitive Are Environmental Valuations To Economic Downturns?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 235-240.
    5. Joseph Cook & Marc Jeuland & Brian Maskery & Dale Whittington, 2012. "Giving Stated Preference Respondents “Time to Think”: Results From Four Countries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 473-496, April.
    6. Hidano, Noboru & Kato, Takaaki & Aritomi, Masakazu, 2005. "Benefits of participating in contingent valuation mail surveys and their effects on respondent behavior: a panel analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 63-80, January.
    7. Loomis, John B. & Gonzalez-Caban, Armando, 1998. "A willingness-to-pay function for protecting acres of spotted owl habitat from fire," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 315-322, June.
    8. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    9. Akcura, Elcin, 2015. "Mandatory versus voluntary payment for green electricity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 84-94.
    10. Perni, Ángel & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Martínez-Paz, José Miguel, 2021. "Contingent valuation estimates for environmental goods: Validity and reliability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    11. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    12. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "The relationship between reliability and size of willingness‐to‐pay values: a qualitative insight," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(2), pages 211-216, February.
    13. John Whitehead & Richard Aiken, 2007. "Temporal reliability of willingness to pay from the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(6), pages 777-786.
    14. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Macmillan, Douglas C. & Philip, Lorna & Hanley, Nick & Alvarez-Farizo, Begona, 2002. "Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group based approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 49-59, November.
    16. Michaël Schwarzinger & Fabrice Carrat & Stéphane Luchini, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question". Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Post-Print inserm-00636179, HAL.
    17. David Whynes & Emma Frew & Jane Wolstenholme, 2005. "Willingness-to-Pay and Demand Curves: A Comparison of Results Obtained Using Different Elicitation Formats," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 369-386, December.
    18. Cam Donaldson & Stephen Birch & Amiram Gafni, 2002. "The distribution problem in economic evaluation: income and the valuation of costs and consequences of health care programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 55-70, January.
    19. Onwujekwe, Obinna & Hanson, Kara & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2005. "Do divergences between stated and actual willingness to pay signify the existence of bias in contingent valuation surveys?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 525-536, February.
    20. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.

    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:14:y:2005:i:5:p:529-536. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.