A note on the expected biases in conventional iterative health state valuation protocols

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 544-546

  Ternent, Laura ^a   Tsuchiya, Aki ^a  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

bias; contingent valuation; time tradeoff

Indexed keywords

HEALTH STATUS; OBSERVER VARIATION; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; ARTICLE; BIAS; CONTINGENT VALUATION; TIME TRADEOFF;

HEALTH STATUS; OBSERVER VARIATION; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS;

BIAS; CONTINGENT VALUATION; TIME TRADEOFF;

EID: 84877049718     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12475093     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986 ; 5 (1). 1-30
2. Group M York, UK: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; ; 1994
3. Cummings RG, Taylor LO. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev. 1999 ; 89 (3). 649-65
4. Ozdemir S, Johnson FR, Hauber AB. Hypothetical bias, cheap talk, and stated willingness to pay for health care. J Health Econ. 2009 ; 28 (4). 894-901
5. Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy. 1999 ; 47 (2). 97-123
6. Skjoldborg US, Gyrd-Hansen D The cost variable: an Achilles' heel? Health Econ ; 2003: 479-91.
7. Stewart JM, O'Shea E, Donaldson C, Shackley P. Do ordering effects matter in willingness-to-pay studies of health care?. J Health Econ. 2002 ; 21 (4). 585-99
8. Augestad LA, Rand-Hendriksen K, Kristiansen IS, Stavem K. Learning effects in time trade-off based valuation of EQ-5D health states. Value Health. 2012 ; 15 (2). 340-5
9. Whynes DK, Wolstenholme JL, Frew E. Evidence of range bias in contingent valuation payment scales. Health Econ. 2004 ; 13 (2). 183-90
10. Devlin NJ, Tsuchiya A, Buckingham K, Tilling C. A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the 'lead time' approach. Health Econ. 2011 ; 20 (3). 348-61
11. Devlin N, Buckingham K, Shah K, et al. A comparison of alternative variants of the lead and lag time TTO. Health Econ. :
12. Ready RC, Buzby JC, Hu DY. Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates. Land Econ. 1996 ; 72 (3). 397-411
13. Holmes TP, Kramer RA. An independent sample test of yea-saying and starting point bias in dichotomous-choice contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag. 1995 ; 29 (1). 121-32
14. Bhatia MR. From evidence to calibration for starting point bias: willingness to pay for treated mosquito nets in Gujarat, India. Appl Econ. 2005 ; 37 (1). 1-7
15. Frew EJ, Wolstenholme JL, Whynes DK. Comparing willingness-to-pay: bidding game format versus open-ended and payment scale formats. Health Policy. 2004 ; 68 (3). 289-98
16. Phillips KA, Homan RK, Luft HS, et al. Willingness to pay for poison control centers. J Health Econ. 1997 ; 16 (3). 343-57
17. Stalhammar NO. An empirical note on willingness to pay and starting-point bias. Med Decis Making. 1996 ; 16 (3). 242-7
18. McNamee P, Ternent L, Gbangou A, Newlands D. A game of two halves? Incentive incompatibility, starting point bias and the bidding game contingent valuation method. Health Econ. 2010 ; 19 (1). 75-87
19. Herriges JA, Shogren JF. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. J Environ Econ Manag. 1996 ; 30 (1). 112-31
20. Samuelsen CH, Augestad LA, Stavem K, Kristiansen IS, Rand-Hendriksen K. Anchoring bias in time-trade off and the lead-time time trade-off. Paper presented at the EuroQoL Plenary Meeting, Doelen Congress Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands ; 2012 ; 2012..
21. Watson V, Ryan M. Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation. J Health Econ. 2007 ; 26 (3). 463-82