Reliability and Validity of the Contingent Valuation Method for Estimating Willingness to Pay: A Case of In Vitro Fertilisation

Stella Nalukwago Settumba, Marian Shanahan, Willings Botha, Muhammad Zulilhaam Ramli and Georgina Mary Chambers ()
Additional contact information
Stella Nalukwago Settumba: National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, Centre for Big Data Research in Health and School of Women’s and Children’s Health, University of New South Wales
Marian Shanahan: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales
Willings Botha: National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, Centre for Big Data Research in Health and School of Women’s and Children’s Health, University of New South Wales
Muhammad Zulilhaam Ramli: National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, Centre for Big Data Research in Health and School of Women’s and Children’s Health, University of New South Wales
Georgina Mary Chambers: National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, Centre for Big Data Research in Health and School of Women’s and Children’s Health, University of New South Wales

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2019, vol. 17, issue 1, No 10, 103-110

Abstract: Abstract Background The contingent valuation (CV) method is an alternative approach to typical health economic methods for valuing interventions that have both health and non-health outcomes. Fertility treatment, such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF), fall into this category because of the significant non-health outcomes associated with having children. Aim To estimate the general population’s willingness to pay (WTP) for one cycle of IVF and one year of IVF treatment, and to test the reliability and validity of a CV instrument. Methods Three online CV surveys were administered to a total of 1870 participants from the Australian general population using an ex-post perspective, that is, they assumed they were infertile and needed IVF to conceive a child. Participants answered questions with starting point WTP bids of 2018 Australian dollars (AU$) 4000 or $10,000 for the cost of one IVF cycle, and treatment success rates of 10%, 20% and 50% per IVF cycle. Tests for reliability, internal construct validity, starting point bias, and external validity were performed. Results Depending on the success rate and the starting point WTP bid, the mean WTP for one IVF cycle ranged from $6135 to $13,561, while the mean WTP for one year of IVF treatment varied from $17,080 to $31,006. The CV method was reliable and satisfied internal construct and external criterion validity. However strong starting point bias was evident, rendering the mean WTP values highly imprecise. Conclusion The CV method holds promise for eliciting the value of interventions, such as fertility treatment, that have significant health and non-health outcomes. Survey instruments that prevent starting point bias are essential. Comparing the results of CV methods to other value elicitation methods is needed to confirm convergent validity.

Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-018-0433-3 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

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:spr:aphecp:v:17:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0433-3

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40258

DOI: 10.1007/s40258-018-0433-3

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson

More articles in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().