Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation studies of health care services: Should we ask twice?

Health Economics

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 101-112

  Gyrd Hansen, D ^a,b   Kjaera T ^a   Nielsen, J S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^b Dansk Sundhedsinstitut   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Anchoring and adjustment bias; Contingent valuation; Payment vehicle bias; Scope insensitivity; Time trade off

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTINGENT VALUATION; HEALTH SERVICE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK REDUCTION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DENMARK; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HEALTH SERVICES; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PREFERENCE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84855522993     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1690     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Andersson H, Hammitt JK, Lindberg G, Sundstrom K. 2009. Willingness to pay for car safety: sensitivity to time framing, Presented at the17th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Amsterdam, Holland, 24-27 June (Available from: http://www.webmeets.com/files/ papers/EAERE/2009/413/Car-WTP-sli.pdf).
2. Arana JE, Leon CJ, Hanemann MW. 2008. Emotions and decision rules in discrete choice experiments for valuing health care programmes for the elderly. Journal of Health Economics 27(3): 753-769.
3. Baron J. 1997. Biases in the quantitative measurement of values of public decisions. Psychological Bulletin 122(1): 72-88.
4. Beattie J, Covey J, Dolan P et al. 1998. On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation: part 1 - caveat investigator. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17(1): 5-26.
5. Campos P, Caparrós A, Oviedo JL. 2007. Comparing payment - vehicle effects in contingent valuation studies for recreational use in two protected Spanish forests. Journal of Leisure Research 39: 60-85. (Pubitemid 46358220)
6. Carson RT. 1995. Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28: 155-173. (Pubitemid 26431296)
7. Clark J, Friesen L. 2008. The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: an experimental investigation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 56: 195-206.
8. Donaldson C, Jones AM, Mapp TJ, Olsen JA. 1998. Limited dependent variables in willingness to pay studies: applications in health care. Applied Economics 30: 667-677. (Pubitemid 128768999)
9. Duborg WR, Jones-Lee MW, Loomes G. 1997. Imprecise preference and survey design. Economica (64): 681-702.
10. Giraud KL, Loomis JB, Johnson RL. 1999. Internal and external scope in willingness-to-pay estimates for threatened and endangered wildlife. Journal of Environmental Management 56(3): 221-229. (Pubitemid 29353921)
11. Hammit JK, Graham JD. 1999. Willingness to pay for health protection: inadequate sensitivity to probability? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 18(1): 33-62.
12. Heberlein TA, Willson MA, Bishop RC, Schaeffer NC. 2005. Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50(1): 1-22. (Pubitemid 40793945)
13. Hole AR. 2007. A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Economics 16(8): 827-840. (Pubitemid 47215133)
14. Hsee CK, Rottenstreich Y. 2004. Music, pandas and muggers: on the affective psychology of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology 133(1): 23-30. (Pubitemid 38260131)
15. Jones-Lee MW, Hammerton M, Phillips PR. 1985. The value of safety: results of a national sample survey. The Economic Journal 95: 49-72.
16. Jones-Lee MW, Loomes G, Phillips PR. 1995. Valuing the prevention of non-fatal road injuries: contingent valuation versus standard gambles. Oxford Economic Papers (47): 676-695.
17. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL. 1992. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22: 55-70.
18. Krupnick A, Alberini A, Cropper M, Simon N, O'Brien B, Goeree R, Heintzelman M. 2002. Age, health and the willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions: a contingent valuation survey of Ontario residents. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 24(2): 161-186. (Pubitemid 37131161)
19. Leiter AM, Pruckner GJ. 2009. Proportionality of willingness to pay for small changes in risk: the impact of attitudinal factors in scope tests. Environmental Resource Economics 42: 169-186.
20. Morrison MD, Blamey RK, Bennett JW. 2000. Minimising payment vehicle bias in contingent valuation studies. Environmental and Resource Economics 16: 407-422. (Pubitemid 30647821)
21. Olsen JA, Donaldson C, Periera J. 2004. The insensitivity of willingness to pay to the size of the good: new evidence for health care. Journal of Economic Psychology 25(4): 445-460. (Pubitemid 38782229)
22. Shiell A, Gold L. 2002. Contingent valuation in health care and the persistence of embedding effects without the warm glow. Journal of Economic Psychology 23(2): 251-262.
23. Smith RD. 2005. Sensitivity to scale in contingent valuation: the importance of the budget constraint. Journal of Health Economics 24(3): 515-529. (Pubitemid 40461911)
24. Stevens TH, DeCoteau NE, Willis CE. 1997. Sensitivity of contingent valuation to alternative payment schedules. Land Economics 73: 140-148.
25. Thaler RH. 1999. Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 12: 183-206.
26. Tversky A, Kahnemann D. 1974. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124-1130.
27. Yeung RYT, Smith RD, McGhees SM. 2003. Willingness to pay and size of benefits: an integrated model to test for sensitivity to scale. Health Economics 12(9): 791-796. (Pubitemid 37086849)