EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Testing construct validity of verbal versus numerical measures of preference uncertainty in contingent valuation

Sonia Akter () and Jeffrey Bennett

No 94942, Research Reports from Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub

Abstract: The numerical certainty scale (NCS) and polychotomous choice (PC) methods are two widely used techniques for measuring preference uncertainty in contingent valuation (CV) studies. The NCS follows a numerical scale and the PC is based on a verbal scale. This report presents results of two experiments that use these preference uncertainty measurement techniques. The first experiment was designed to compare and contrast the uncertainty scores obtained from the NCS and the PC method. The second experiment was conducted to test a preference uncertainty measurement scale that combines verbal expressions with numerical and graphical interpretations: a composite certainty scale (CCS). The construct validity of the certainty scores obtained from these three techniques was tested by estimating three separate ordered probit regression models. The results of the study can be summarised in three key findings. First, the PC method generates a higher proportion of ‘yes’ responses than the conventional dichotomous choice elicitation format. Second, the CCS method generates a significantly higher proportion of certain responses than the NCS and the PC methods. Finally, the NCS method performs poorly in terms of construct validity. Overall, the verbal measures perform better than the numerical measure. The CCS is a promising method to measure preference uncertainty in CV studies. To better understand its strengths and weaknesses however, further empirical applications are needed.

Keywords: Environmental Economics and Policy; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 44
Date: 2010-01
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-dcm, nep-ecm, nep-env, nep-exp and nep-upt
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/94942/files/EERH_RR46.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
Working Paper: Testing construct validity of verbal versus numerical measures of preference uncertainty in contingent valuation (2010) Downloads
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:ags:eerhrr:94942

DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.94942

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Research Reports from Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by AgEcon Search ().

 
Page updated 2020-01-24
Handle: RePEc:ags:eerhrr:94942