Empirical implications of response acquiescence in discrete-choice contigent valuation

Health Economics

Volumn 15, Issue 10, 2006, Pages 1077-1089

  Yeung, Raymond Y T ^a,b,c   Smith, Richard D ^a,d   Ho, Lai Ming ^a   Johnston, Janice M ^a   Leung, Gabriel M ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^c Swiss Re   (Hong Kong)

^d UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Econometric modelling; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CONTINGENT VALUATION; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; STATISTICAL MODEL;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HONG KONG; HUMANS; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 33750191599     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1107     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Jones-Lee MW. The value of transport safety. Oxford Rev Econ Pol 1990; 6: 39-60.
2. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B et al. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, 2002.
3. Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: a review of 'willingness-to-pay' in health and health care. Health Econ 2001; 10: 39-52.
4. Smith RD. Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment. Health Econ 2003; 12: 609-628.
5. Diener A, O'Brien B, Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ 1998; 7: 313-326.
6. Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy 1999; 47: 97-123.
7. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Learner E, Radner R, Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Reg 1993; 58: 4601-4614.
8. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Learner E, Radner R, Schuman H. Natural resource damage assessments: proposed rules. Fed Reg 1994; 59: 1062-1191.
9. Smith RD. The discrete-choice willingness-to-pay question format in health economics: should we adopt environmental guidelines? Med Decis Making 2000; 20: 194-206.
10. Foreit JR, Foreit KG. The reliability and validity of willingness to pay surveys for reproductive health pricing decisions in developing countries. Health Policy 2003; 63(1): 37-47.
11. Bhatia MR, Fox-Rushby JA. Willingness to pay for treated mosquito nets in Surat, India: the design and descriptive analysis of a household survey. Health Policy Plann 2002; 17: 402-411.
12. Zillich AJ, Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Freeman P. Assessment of the relationship between measures of disease severity, quality of life, and willingness to pay in asthma. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20: 257-265.
13. Slothuus U, Brooks RG. Willingness to pay in arthritis: a Danish contribution. Rheumatology 2000; 39: 791-799.
14. Kristom B. Comparing continuous and discrete valuation question. Environ Resour Econ 1990; 3: 63-71.
15. Bishop RC, Heberlin TA, Kealy MJ. Contingent valuation of environmental assets: comparison with a simulated market. Nat Resour J 1983; 23: 619-623.
16. Bateman IJ, Langford LH, Turner RK, Willis KG, Harrod GD. Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecol Econ 1995; 12: 161-179.
17. Ready RC, Buzby JC, Hu D. Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates. Land Econ 1996; 72: 397-411.
18. Hoehn JP, Randall A. A satisfactory benefit-cost indicator from contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 1987; 14: 226-247.
19. Sugden R. Alternative to neo-classical theory of choice. In Valuing Environmental Preferences; Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Methods, Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds). Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999; 152-180.
20. Carson RT, Groves T, Machina MJ. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Department of Economics Discussion Paper, University of California: San Diego (http://econ.ucsd.edu/~rcarson/ cgm.pdf).
21. Arndt J, Crane E. Response bias, yea-saying and the double-negative. J Market Res 1975; 12: 218-220.
22. Moum T. Yea-saying and Mood-of-the-day effects in self-reported quality of life. Soc Indic Res 1988; 20: 117-139.
23. Slovic P, Lichtenstein S. Preference reversals: a broader perspective. Am Econ Rev 1983; 73: 596-605.
24. Tversky A, Slovic P, Kahneman D. The causes of preference reversal. Am Econ Rev 1990; 80: 204-217.
25. Huang JC, Smith VK. Monte Carlo benchmarks for discrete response valuation methods. Land Econ 1998; 74: 186-202.
26. Bohara AK, McKee M, Barrens RP, Jenkins-Smith H, Silva CL, Brookshire DS. Effects of total cost and group-size information on willingness to pay responses: open ended vs. dichotomous choice. J Environ Econ Manage 1998; 35: 142-163.
27. Sanson SL, Barker L, Corso PS, Brown C, Deuson R. Rotavirus vaccine and intussusception: how much risk will parents in the United States accept to obtain vaccine benefits? Am J Epidemiol 2001; 154: 1077-1085.
28. Boyle KJ, Johnson FR, McCollum DW, Desvousages WH, Dunford RW, Hudson SP. Valuing public goods: discrete versus continuous contingent-valuation responses. Land Econ 1996; 72: 381-396.
29. Cameron TA, Huppert DD. Referendum contingent valuation estimates: sensitivity to the assignment of offered values. J Am Stat Assoc 1991; 86: 910-919.
30. Leung GM, Johnston JM, Ho LM, Wong FK, Cameo SC. Computerization of clinical practice in Hong Kong. Int J Med Inf 2001; 62: 143-154.
31. Hanemann M, Kanninen B. The statistical analysis of discrete response CV data. In Valuing Environmental Preferences; Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Methods, Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds). Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999; 302-441.
32. Cameron TA. A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. J Environ Econ Manage 1988; 15: 355-379.
33. Evans M, Hastings N, Peacok B. Statistical Distributions. Wiley: New York, NY, 1993.
34. Cummings RG, Harrison GW, Rustrom EE. Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible? Am Econ Rev 1995; 85: 260-266.
35. Cooper JC. Flexible functional form estimation of willingness to pay using dichotomous choice data. J Environ Econ Manage 2002; 43: 267-279.