Evidence of range bias in contingent valuation payment scales

David K. Whynes, Jane L. Wolstenholme and Emma Frew ()

Health Economics, 2004, vol. 13, issue 2, 183-190

Abstract: The payment scale format has been widely used in willingness‐to‐pay studies in health care. Concerns have been expressed that the format is, in theory, prone to range bias, although this proposition has not been tested directly. We report the findings of a contingent valuation questionnaire study of colorectal cancer screening, wherein different subjects were provided with payment scales of two different lengths. Whilst the long‐scale instrument included scale values up to £1000, the short‐scale version extended only to £100. After controlling for inter‐sample differences in, for example, income, education and health behaviour, it emerged that the long‐scale instrument produced a mean willingness to pay more than 30% higher than that resulting from the short‐scale version. We believe our findings to be strongly supportive of the likelihood of range bias in payment‐scale instruments, with important consequences for the estimation of both average valuation and consumer surplus. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Date: 2004
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (29)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.809

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:13:y:2004:i:2:p:183-190

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 ().