Criterion and content validity of a novel structured haggling contingent valuation question format versus the bidding game and binary with follow-up format

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 58, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 525-537

  Onwujekwe, Obinna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA   (Nigeria)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Haggling; Insecticide treated nets; Validity; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

BARGAINING; CONTINGENT VALUATION; IMPREGNATED BEDNET; METHODOLOGY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ARTICLE; BED NET; CONSUMER; CONTINGENT VALUATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DEMOGRAPHY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERVIEW; MARKETING; NIGERIA; PREDICTION; QUESTIONNAIRE; SOCIOECONOMICS; VALIDATION PROCESS;

AFRICA; NIGERIA; SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA; WEST AFRICA;

EID: 0344926528     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00214-4     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Agbonifoh B.A., Bakwenye N.M. Correlates of haggling behaviour. Benin Journal of Social Sciences. 1:1985;27-35.
2. Alberini A. Testing willingness to pay models of discrete choice contingent valuation survey data. Land Economics. 71:1995;83-95.
3. Asgary A., Willis K.G. Estimating the benefits of construction measures to mitigate earthquake risks in Iran. Environmental and Planning B - Planning and Design. 24(4):1997;613-624.
4. Balogun S.K. Bargaining strategy and sex as determinants of bargaining outcomes in open markets. Nigerian Journal of Economics and Social Studies. 33(1):1991;31-38.
5. Basden G.T. Niger Ibos. 1938;Seeley, Service and Co. Ltd, London.
6. Binka F.N., Kubaje A., Adjuik M., Williams L.A., Lengeler C., Maude G.H., Armah G.E., Kajihara B., Adiamah J.H., Smith P.G. Impact of permethrin impregnated bednets on child mortality in Kassena-Nankana District, Ghana. A randomised controlled trial Tropical Medicine and International Health. 1:1996;147-154.
7. Blumenschein K., Johannesson M., Blomquist G.C., Liljas B., O'Conor R.M. Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Southern Economic Journal. 65(1):1998;169-177.
8. Blumenschein K., Johannesson M., Yokoyama K.K., Freeman P.R. Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector. Results from a field experiment Journal of Health Economics. 20(3):2001;441-458.
9. Brown T.C., Champ P.A., Bishop R.C., McCollum D.W. Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good? Land Economics. 72:1996;152-166.
10. Bowling, A. (1997). Measuring health: A review of quality of life measurement scales (2nd ed.) (pp. 10-11). Buckingham: Open University Press.
11. Carmines E.G., Zeller R.A. Reliability and validity assessment. 1979;Sage Publications, London.
12. Chestnut L., Keller L., Lambert W., Rowe R. Measuring heart patients' willingness to pay for changes in angina symptoms. Medical Decision Making. 16(1):1996;65-77.
13. Dgedge, M., Gomes, A., Cossa, H., Kumaranayake, L., & Lines, J. (1999). Willingness to pay for insecticide treated nets before and after implementation of ITN in a semi-rural district of south Mozambique. Book of Abstracts, MIM African Malaria Conference, Durban, South Africa, p. B-29.
14. Diamond P., Hausman J. Contingent valuation. Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economics Perspectives. 8(4):1994;45-64.
15. Diener A., O'Brien B., Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies. A review and classification of the literature Health Economics. 7:1998;313-326.
16. Dinwiddy C., Teal F. Principles of cost-benefit analysis for developing countries. 1996;Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
17. Donaldson, C. (1993). Theory and practice of willingness to pay for health care. Health Economics Research Unit Discussion paper 01/93, Departments of Public Health and Economics, University of Aberdeen.
18. Drummond M.E., O'Brien B., Stoddart G.L., Torrance G.W. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 1997;Oxford University Press, New York.
19. Foster V., Bateman I.J., Harley D. Real and hypothetical willingness to pay for environmental preservation. A non-experimental comparison Journal of Agricultural Economics. 48(2):1997;123-138.
20. Frykblom P. Hypothetical question modes and real willingness to pay. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 34(3):1997;275-287.
21. Goodman C.A., Mnzava A.E., Dlamini S.S., Sharp B.L., Mthembu D.J., Gumede J.K. Comparison of the cost and cost-effectiveness of insecticide-treated bednets and residual house-spraying in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Tropical Medicine International Health. 6:2001;280-295.
22. Hanemann W.M. Willingness to pay and willingness to accept. How much do they differ? American Economic Review. 81:1991;635-647.
23. Herriges J.A., Shogren J.F. Staring point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 30:1996;112-131.
24. Johannesson M., Liljas B., Johansson P. An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions. Applied Economics. 30:1998;643-647.
25. Kartman B., StAlhammar N., Johannesson M. Contingent valuation with an open-ended follow-up question. A test of scope effects Health Economics. 6:1997;637-639.
26. Kealey M.J., Turner R.W. A test for the equality of close-ended and open-ended contingent valuations. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 75:1993;321-331.
27. Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy. 47:1999;97-123.
28. Liljas B., Blumenschein K. On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies. Health Policy. 52:2000;53-70.
29. Loomis J., Brown T., Lucero B., Peterson G. Evaluating the validity of the dichotomous choice question format in contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics. 10:1997;109-123.
30. Mathiyazhagan K. Willingness to pay for rural health insurance through community participation in India. Health Planning and Management. 13:1998;47-67.
31. Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
32. NOAA. (1993). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58, 4602-4614.
33. O'Brien B., Gafni A. When do the "dollars" make sense? Toward a conceptual framework for contingent valuation studies in health care. Medical Decision Making. 16:1996;288-299.
34. Ojediran, B. (1988). Odo-Oba: The village that feeds the multitude. Sunday Sketch, (27), 8-9 (Quoted in Balogun, S. K. (1991). Bargaining strategy and sex as determinants of bargaining outcomes in open markets. Nigerian Journal of Economics and Social Studies, 33, 31-38).
35. Ojediran, B. (1988). Odo-Oba: The village that feeds the multitude. Sunday Sketch, (27), 8-9 (Quoted in Balogun, S. K. (1991). Bargaining strategy and sex as determinants of bargaining outcomes in open markets. Nigerian Journal of Economics and Social Studies, 33, 31-38).
36. Onwujekwe O.E. Searching for a better contingent valuation elicitation method in rural Nigeria. The Binary question with follow-up versus the bidding game technique. Health Economics. 10:2001;147-158.
37. Onwujekwe O.E., Chima R., Shu E., Nwagbo D., Okonkwo P. Hypothetical and actual willingness to pay for Insecticide-treated nets. A study in five Nigerian communities Tropical Medical International Health. 6(7):2001;545-553.
38. Rowley, J., Cham, B., & Pinder, M. (1999). Availability and affordability of insecticide for treating bednets in The Gambia. Book of Abstracts, MIM African Malaria Conference, Durban, South Africa, p. B-85.
39. Russell S., Fox-Rushby J., Arhin D. Willingness and ability to pay for health care. A selection of methods and issues Health Policy and Planning. 10:1995;94-101.
40. Smith R.D. The discrete-choice willingness to pay question format in Health economics. Should we adopt environmental guidelines? Medical Decision Making. 20:2000;194-206.
41. Streiner D.L., Norman G.R. Health measurement scales. Practical guide to their development and use. 2nd ed. 1995;Oxford University Press, New York.