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

D. Gyrd‐Hansen, T. Kjær and J. S. Nielsen

Health Economics, 2012, vol. 21, issue 2, 101-112

Abstract: The main purpose of the present study was to test for outcome scope insensitivity. Respondents were initially asked to value one of two severe health states by way of a time‐trade‐off (TTO) exercise. Subsequent to the TTO exercise all respondents were asked to value an intervention, which offered a reduction in risk of falling into the health state they had evaluated. All respondents were subsequent to this initial CV exercise asked to value the same risk reduction, but in this case the outcome was death. Although our study passes the internal scope test, there is not a high degree of sensitivity to outcome. As many as 68% of respondents stated an identical maximum WTP in first and second CV valuation exercise implying that they value the interventions equally despite the fact that the health state presented in the initial CV question was deemed far better than death according to the TTO responses given by the same respondents. In contrast, the external scope test (comparison of response to initial CV across study arms) fared much better. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Date: 2012
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1690

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:21:y:2012:i:2:p:101-112

Access Statistics for this article

Health Economics is currently edited by Alan Maynard, John Hutton and Andrew Jones

More articles in Health Economics from John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().