IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v16y2007i8p827-840.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures

Author

Listed:
  • Arne Risa Hole

Abstract

This paper describes four approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures: the delta, Fieller, Krinsky Robb and bootstrap methods. The accuracy of the various methods is compared using a number of simulated datasets. In the majority of the scenarios considered all four methods are found to be reasonably accurate as well as yielding similar results. The delta method is the most accurate when the data is well‐conditioned, while the bootstrap is more robust to noisy data and misspecification of the model. These conclusions are illustrated by empirical data from a study of willingness to pay for a reduction in waiting time for a general practitioner appointment in which all the methods produce fairly similar confidence intervals. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:16:y:2007:i:8:p:827-840
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.1197
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1197
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.1197?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J.M.C. Santos Silva, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures in discrete choice experiments: a comment to Lancsar and Savage (2)," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 913-918, September.
    2. Mandy Ryan, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures in discrete choice experiments: a comment to Lancsar and Savage (1)," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 909-912, September.
    3. Kling, Catherine L., 1991. "Estimating the precision of welfare measures," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 244-259, November.
    4. Guilkey, David K. & Murphy, James L., 1993. "Estimation and testing in the random effects probit model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 301-317, October.
    5. McIntosh, E. & Ryan, M., 2002. "Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: Implications of discontinuous preferences," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 367-382, June.
    6. Gary Chamberlain, 1980. "Analysis of Covariance with Qualitative Data," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 47(1), pages 225-238.
    7. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1991. "Three Methods for Calculating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities: A Comparison," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 199-209.
    8. Armstrong, Paula & Garrido, Rodrigo & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 0. "Confidence intervals to bound the value of time," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(2-3), pages 143-161, April.
    9. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    10. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1990. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities: A Correction," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(1), pages 189-190, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. David S. Bullock & Klaus Salhofer & Jukka Kola, 1999. "The Normative Analysis of Agricultural Policy: A General Framework and Review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 512-535, September.
    2. Richard Norman & Jane Hall & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Efficiency And Equity: A Stated Preference Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 568-581, May.
    3. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    4. Yujin Jeong & Jordan I. Siegel & Sophie Yu‐Pu Chen & Whitney K. Newey, 2020. "A recentering approach for interpreting interaction effects from logit, probit, and other nonlinear models," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(11), pages 2072-2091, November.
    5. John Dagsvik & Tom Kornstad & Terje Skjerpen, 2013. "Labor force participation and the discouraged worker effect," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 401-433, August.
    6. Carson, Richard T. & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "A new baseline model for estimating willingness to pay from discrete choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 57-61.
    7. Bolduc, Denis & Khalaf, Lynda & Yélou, Clément, 2010. "Identification robust confidence set methods for inference on parameter ratios with application to discrete choice models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 157(2), pages 317-327, August.
    8. Deborah A. Marshall & F. Reed Johnson & Nathalie A. Kulin & Semra Özdemir & Judith M. E. Walsh & John K. Marshall & Stephanie Van Bebber & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2009. "How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated‐choice survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(12), pages 1420-1439, December.
    9. Poe, Gregory L. & Giraud, Kelly L. & Loomis, John B., 2001. "Simple Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions: Application to Internal and External Scope Tests in Contingent Valuation," Staff Papers 121130, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    10. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    11. Gatta, Valerio & Marcucci, Edoardo & Scaccia, Luisa, 2015. "On finite sample performance of confidence intervals methods for willingness to pay measures," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 169-192.
    12. Scaccia, Luisa & Marcucci, Edoardo & Gatta, Valerio, 2023. "Prediction and confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 54-78.
    13. Jörg Breitung & Michael Lechner, 1996. "Estimation de modèles non linéaires sur données de panel par la méthode des moments généralisés," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 126(5), pages 191-203.
    14. Aitken, Brian & Hanson, Gordon H. & Harrison, Ann E., 1997. "Spillovers, foreign investment, and export behavior," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1-2), pages 103-132, August.
    15. J. Paul Combs & Rickey C. Kirkpatrick & Jason F. Shogren & Joseph A. Herriges, 1993. "Matching Grants and Public Goods: a Closed-Ended Contingent Valuation Experiment," Public Finance Review, , vol. 21(2), pages 178-195, April.
    16. Martínez-Espiñeira, Roberto & Lyssenko, Nikita, 2011. "Correcting for the endogeneity of pro-environment behavioral choices in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1435-1439, June.
    17. de Hond, Anne & Bakx, Pieter & Versteegh, Matthijs, 2019. "Can time heal all wounds? An empirical assessment of adaptation to functional limitations in an older population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 180-187.
    18. Breitung, Jörg & Lechner, Michael, 1998. "Alternative GMM methods for nonlinear panel data models," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1998,81, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    19. Wakamatsu, Mihoko & Shin, Kong Joo & Wilson, Clevo & Managi, Shunsuke, 2018. "Exploring a Gap between Australia and Japan in the Economic Valuation of Whale Conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 397-407.
    20. von Haefen, Roger H., 2003. "Incorporating observed choice into the construction of welfare measures from random utility models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 145-165, 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:16:y:2007:i:8:p:827-840. 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.