Willingness to pay (WTP) is increasingly being used as a measure of valuation in health technology assessment. A variety of formats for eliciting values are available, although the relative virtues of each remain the subject of methodological controversy. This article compares valuation results obtained using a WTP survey instrument in a closed-ended format with those obtained from instruments using open-ended and payment scale formats. Samples of subjects were drawn from a general population, and all were asked to value the same intervention—alternative methods of screening for colorectal cancer. It was discovered that, whereas the open-ended and payment scale formats produced broadly similar valuations, the closed-ended format produced significantly higher WTP valuations and different justifications for those valuations. It is hypothesized that anchoring and yea-saying effects explain these differences and that the closed-ended format triggers a different response mode in subjects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Blumenschein K, Johannesson M. Use of contingent valuation to place a monetary value on pharmacy services: an overview and review of the literature . Clin Ther. 1999; 21(8): 1402–17 .
2.
2. Diener A, O’Brien B, Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature . Health Econ. 1998; 7: 313–26 .
3.
3. Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care . Health Policy. 1999; 47: 97–123 .
4.
4. Liljas B, Blumenschein K. On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies . Health Policy. 2000; 52: 53–70 .
5.
5. Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington (DC): Resources for the Future ; 1989.
6.
6. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H. Report to the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Mimeo; 1993.
7.
7. Johannesson M, Jonsson B, Karlsson G. Outcome measurement in economic evaluation . Health Econ. 1996; 5: 279–96 .
8.
8. Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence . Environ Res Econ. 2001; 19: 173–210 .
9.
9. Smith RD. The discrete-choice willingness to pay question format in health economics: should we adopt environmental guidelines? Med Decis Making. 2000; 20: 194–206 .
10.
10. Frew E, Wolstenholme JL, Whynes DK. Willingness-to-pay for colorectal cancer screening . Eur J Cancer. 2001; 37: 1746–51 .
11.
11. Lieberman D, Sleisenger MH. Is it time to recommend screening for colorectal cancer? Lancet. 1996; 348: 1463–4 .
12.
12. Mulcahy HE, Farthing MJG, O’Donoghue DP. Fortnightly review: screening for asymptomatic cancer . Br Med J. 1997; 314: 285–91 .
13.
13. Young GP, Macrae FA, St John DJB. Clinical methods for early detection: basis, use and evaluation. In: GP Young, B Levin, editors. Prevention and Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer. London: W.B. Saunders ; 1996. p. 242–70.
14.
14. Lieberman D. How to screen for colon cancer . Annu Rev Med. 1998; 49: 163–72 .
15.
15. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MHE, Moss SM, Amar SS, Balfour TW, et al. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer . Lancet. 1996; 348: 1472–7 .
16.
16. Whynes DK, Neilson AR, Walker AR, Hardcastle JD. Faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer: is it cost-effective? Health Econ. 1998; 7: 21–9 .
17.
17. Atkin WS, Cuzick J, Northover JMA, Whynes DK. Prevention of colorectal cancer by once-only sigmoidoscopy . Lancet. 1993; 341: 736–40 .
18.
18. UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial Investigators. Single flexible sigmoidoscopy screening to prevent colorectal cancer: baseline findings of a UK multicentre randomised trial . Lancet. 2002; 359: 1291–1300 .
19.
19. Neilson AR, Whynes DK. Determinants of persistent compliance with screening for colorectal cancer . Soc Sci Med. 1995; 41: 365–74 .
20.
20. Shapiro JA, Seeff LC, Nadel MR. Colorectal cancer: screening tests and associated health behaviours . AmJ Prev Med. 2001; 21(2): 132–7 .
21.
21. Vernon SW. Participation in colorectal cancer screening: a review . J Ntl Cancer Inst. 1997; 89: 1406–22 .
22.
22. Hanemann WM, Kanninen B. The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data. Working Paper 798, University of California at Berkeley, Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics; 1996.
23.
23. Kanninen BJ. Design of sequential experiments for contingent valuation studies . J Environ Econ Manag. 1993; 25: S1–S11 .
24.
24. Kristrom B. A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies . Land Econ. 1990; 66(2): 135–9 .
25.
25. Ryan M, San Miguel F. Testing for consistency in willingness to pay experiments . J Econ Psychol. 2000; 21: 305–17 .
26.
26. Ready RC, Buzby JC, Hu D. Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates . Land Econ. 1996; 72(3): 397–411 .
27.
27. Bonato D, Nocera S, Telser H. The contingent valuation method in healthcare: an economic evaluation of Alzheimer’s disease. Diskussionsschriften 01-01; University of Bern, Institute of Economics; 2001.
28.
28. O’Conor RM, Johannesson M, Johansson P-O. Stated preferences, real behaviour and anchoring: some empirical evidence . Environ Res Econ. 1999; 13: 235–48 .
29.
29. Frykblom P, Shogren JF. An experimental testing of anchoring effects in discrete choice questions . Environ Res Econ. 2000; 16: 329–41 .
30.
30. Balistreri E, McClelland G, Poe G, Schulze W. Can hypothetical questions reveal true values? A laboratory comparison of dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent values with auction values . Environ Res Econ. 2001; 18: 275–92 .
31.
31. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases . Science. 1974; 185: 1124–31 .
32.
32. Couch A, Keniston K. Yeasayers and naysayers: agreeing response set as a personality variable . J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1960; 60: 151–74 .
33.
33. Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ. The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press ; 1993.
