IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v58y2004i3p525-537.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Criterion and content validity of a novel structured haggling contingent valuation question format versus the bidding game and binary with follow-up format

Author

Listed:
  • Onwujekwe, Obinna

Abstract

Contingent valuation question formats that will be used to elicit willingness to pay for goods and services need to be relevant to the area they will be used in order for responses to be valid. A novel contingent valuation question format called the "structured haggling technique" (SH) that resembles the bargaining system in Nigerian markets was designed and its criterion and content validity compared with those of the bidding game (BG) and binary-with-follow-up (BWFU) technique. This was achieved by determining the willingness to pay (WTP) for insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) in Southeast Nigeria. Content validity was determined through observation of actual trading of untreated nets together with interviews with sellers and consumers. Criterion validity was determined by comparing stated and actual WTP. Stated WTP was determined using a questionnaire administered to 810 household heads and actual WTP was determined by offering the nets for sale to all respondents one month later. The phi (correlation) coefficient was used to compare criterion validity across question formats. The phi coefficients were SH (0.60: 95% C.I. 0.50-0.71), BG (0.42: 95% C.I. 0.29-0.54) and the BWFU (0.32: 95% C.I. 0.20-0.44), implying that the BG and SH had similar levels of criterion-validity while the BWFU was the least criterion-valid. However, the SH was the most content-valid. It is necessary to validate the findings in other areas where haggling is common. Future studies should establish the content validity of question formats in the contexts in which they will be used before administering questionnaires.

Suggested Citation

  • Onwujekwe, Obinna, 2004. "Criterion and content validity of a novel structured haggling contingent valuation question format versus the bidding game and binary with follow-up format," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 525-537, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:58:y:2004:i:3:p:525-537
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(03)00214-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kangethe, Anne & Franic, Duska M. & Corso, Phaedra S., 2016. "Comparing the validity of the payment card and structured haggling willingness to pay methods: The case of a diabetes prevention program in rural Kenya," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 86-96.
    2. Cam Donaldson & Helen Mason & Phil Shackley, 2012. "Contingent Valuation in Health Care," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 40, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Borghi, Josephine & Shrestha, Daya L. & Shrestha, Deepa & Jan, Stephen, 2007. "Using focus groups to develop contingent valuation scenarios--A case study of women's groups in rural Nepal," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 531-542, February.
    4. Phil Shackley & Simon Dixon, 2014. "The Random Card Sort Method And Respondent Certainty In Contingent Valuation: An Exploratory Investigation Of Range Bias," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(10), pages 1213-1223, October.
    5. Mehmet Kutluay & Roy Brouwer & Richard S. J. Tol, 2019. "Valuing malaria morbidity: results from a global meta-analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 301-321, July.
    6. Kanya, Lucy & Sanghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 238-261.
    7. Kanya, Lucy & Saghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100741, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Dror, David Mark & Radermacher, Ralf & Koren, Ruth, 2007. "Willingness to pay for health insurance among rural and poor persons: Field evidence from seven micro health insurance units in India," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 12-27, June.
    9. Samuel Shillcutt & Damian Walker & Catherine Goodman & Anne Mills, 2009. "Cost Effectiveness in Low- and Middle-Income Countries," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(11), pages 903-917, November.
    10. Uzochukwu, Benjamin & Uguru, Nkolika & Ezeoke, Uche & Onwujekwe, Obinna & Sibeudu, Tochi, 2011. "Voluntary counseling and testing (VCT) for HIV/AIDS: A study of the knowledge, awareness and willingness to pay for VCT among students in tertiary institutions in Enugu State Nigeria," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(3), pages 277-284, March.
    11. Bratt, John H., 2010. "Predicting impact of price increases on demand for reproductive health services: Can it be done well?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(2-3), pages 159-165, May.
    12. Onwujekwe, Obinna & Hanson, Kara & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2005. "Do divergences between stated and actual willingness to pay signify the existence of bias in contingent valuation surveys?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 525-536, February.
    13. Borghi, Josephine & Jan, Stephen, 2008. "Measuring the benefits of health promotion programmes: Application of the contingent valuation method," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 235-248, August.
    14. Laura Ternent & Paul McNamee & David Newlands & Danielle Belemsaga & Adjima Gbangou & Suzanne Cross, 2010. "Willingness to pay for maternal health outcomes," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 99-109, March.
    15. M. Trapero‐Bertran & H. Mistry & J. Shen & J. Fox‐Rushby, 2013. "A Systematic Review And Meta‐Analysis Of Willingness‐To‐Pay Values: The Case Of Malaria Control Interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 428-450, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:58:y:2004:i:3:p:525-537. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.