Insensitivity to scope in contingent valuation studies: Reason for dismissal of valuations?

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Volumn 10, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 397-405

  Søgaard, Rikke ^a   Lindholt, Jes ^b   Gyrd Hansen, Dorte ^a,c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^b VIBORG HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^c UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^d Dansk Sundhedsinstitut   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Health economics; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BUDGET; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CONTINGENT VALUATION; COST; ECONOMIC ASPECT; EMOTION; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MALE; RISK REDUCTION; SCREENING;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; DENMARK; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; QUESTIONNAIRES; VALUE OF LIFE;

EID: 84868272131     PISSN: 11755652     EISSN: 11791896     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11633800-000000000-00000     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. David R. Recreation planning as an economic problem. Nat Resour J 1963; 3 (2): 239-49
2. Diener A, O'Brien B, Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ 1998 Jun; 7 (4): 313-26 (Pubitemid 28339960)
3. Bateman I, Willis K, editors. Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU and developing countries. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press; 1999
4. Haab T, McConnell E. Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers, 2003
5. Carson R, Hanemann W. Contingent valuation. In: Maler K, Vincent J, editors. Handbook of environmental economics. Amsterdam: North Holland; 2005: 821-936
6. Kahneman D, Knetsch J. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J Environ Econ Manag 1992; 22 (1): 57-70
7. Beattie J, Covey J, Dolan P, et al. On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation: Part 1-caveat investigator. J Risk Uncertainty 1998; 17 (1): 5-26
8. Jones-Lee M, Hammerton M, Philips P. The value of safety: results of a national sample survey. Econ J 1985; 95: 49-72
9. Hammitt JK, Graham JD. Willingness to pay for health protection: inadequate sensitivity to probability? J Risk Uncertainty 1999; 8: 33-62
10. Olsen J, Donaldson C, Pereira J. The insensitivity of 'willingness-to-pay' to the size of the good: new evidence for health care. J Econ Psychol 2004; 25 (4): 445-60 (Pubitemid 38782229)
11. Gyrd-Hansen D, Kjaer T, Nielsen JS. Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation studies of health care services: should we ask twice? Health Econ 2012; 21 (2): 101-12
12. Carson R, Flores N, Norman F. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Resource Econ 2001; 19: 173-210 (Pubitemid 32459257)
13. Arrow K, Leamer E. Comment No. 87. SubmittedtoNOAA in response to Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (59 FR 1062, 1994 Jan 7); 1994
14. Carson R, Mitchell R. Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. J Environ Econ Manag 1995; 28: 155-73 (Pubitemid 26431296)
15. Hausman J. Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1993
16. Robinson L, Hammit J. Behavioral economics and the conduct of benefit-cost analysis: towards principles and standards. J Benefit-Cost Anal 2011; 2 (2): 1-48
17. Smith V, Moore E. Behavioral economics and benefit cost analysis. Environ Resource Econ 2010; 46: 217-46
18. Becker G. A theory of social interactions. J Polit Econ 1974; 82: 1095-117
19. Goldberg I, Roosen J. Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: a comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food. J Risk Uncertainty 2007; 34: 123-44
20. Grondal N, Sogaard R, Henneberg EW, et al. The Viborg Vascular (VIVA) screening trial of 65-74 year old men in the central region of Denmark: study protocol. Trials 2010; 11: 67
21. Hsee CK, Rottenstreich Y. Music, pandas, and muggers: on the affective psychology of value. J Exp Psychol Gen 2004 Mar; 133 (1): 23-30 (Pubitemid 38260131)
22. Herberlein T, Willson M, Bishop R, et al. Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 2005; 50 (1): 1-22 (Pubitemid 40793945)
23. Arana JE, Leon CJ, Hanemann MW. Emotions and decision rules in discrete choice experiments for valuing health care programmes for the elderly. J Health Econ 2008 May; 27 (3): 753-69
24. Loomes G, Sugden R. Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Econ J 1982; 92 (368): 805-24
25. Gyrd-Hansen D, Sogaard J. Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes. Health Econ 2001 Oct; 10 (7): 617-34 (Pubitemid 32998373)
26. Smith RD. Sensitivity to scale in contingent valuation: the importance of the budget constraint. J Health Econ 2005 May; 24 (3): 515-29 (Pubitemid 40461911)
27. Yeung RY, Smith RD, McGhee SM. Willingness to pay and size of health benefit: an integrated model to test for 'sensitivity to scale'. Health Econ 2003 Sep; 12 (9): 791-6 (Pubitemid 37086849)
28. Thaler R. Mental accounting matters. J Behav Decis Making 1999; 12: 183-206
29. Thaler R. Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. J Econ Behav Organ 1980; 1: 39-60