IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v77y1995i3p613-619..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Test-Retest Reliability of Contingent Valuation with Independent Sample Pretest and Posttest Control Groups

Author

Listed:
  • Mario F. Teisl
  • Kevin J. Boyle
  • Daniel W. McCollum
  • Stephen D. Reiling

Abstract

Test-retest, the standard method used to investigate reliability of contingent valuation, is limited because when the time period between the two surveys is relatively short the study may exhibit testing recall. Conversely, when the time between the two surveys increases there is an increased chance the true value will change. The test-retest design cannot isolate these effects. Independent pretest and posttest control groups allow testing of reliability even when recall occurs or the true value changes. Using this design, we found ex post estimates of Hicksian surplus are reliable regardless of whether respondents have direct experience with an activity.

Suggested Citation

  • Mario F. Teisl & Kevin J. Boyle & Daniel W. McCollum & Stephen D. Reiling, 1995. "Test-Retest Reliability of Contingent Valuation with Independent Sample Pretest and Posttest Control Groups," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(3), pages 613-619.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:77:y:1995:i:3:p:613-619.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1243229
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Daniel Mccollum & Kevin Boyle, 2005. "The Effect of Respondent Experience/Knowledge in the Elicitation of Contingent Values: An Investigation of Convergent Validity, Procedural Invariance and Reliability," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(1), pages 23-33, January.
    2. K. McConnell* & I. Strand & Sebastián Valdés, 1998. "Testing Temporal Reliability and Carry-over Effect: The Role of Correlated Responses in Test-retest Reliability Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(3), pages 357-374, October.
    3. Hidano, Noboru & Kato, Takaaki & Aritomi, Masakazu, 2005. "Benefits of participating in contingent valuation mail surveys and their effects on respondent behavior: a panel analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 63-80, January.
    4. Carson, Richard T & Flores, Nicholas A, 2000. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt75k752s7, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    5. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Englin, Jeffrey, 1997. "Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 296-313, July.
    6. Joseph Cook & Marc Jeuland & Brian Maskery & Dale Whittington, 2012. "Giving Stated Preference Respondents “Time to Think”: Results From Four Countries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 473-496, April.
    7. Jorgensen, Bradley S. & Syme, Geoffrey J. & Smith, Leigh M. & Bishop, Brian J., 2004. "Random error in willingness to pay measurement: A multiple indicators, latent variable approach to the reliability of contingent values," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 41-59, February.
    8. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    9. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    10. Mkwara, Lena & Marsh, Dan & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2015. "Testing the stability of welfare estimates in travel cost random utility models of recreation: An application to the Rotorua Lakes, New Zealand," 2015 Conference (59th), February 10-13, 2015, Rotorua, New Zealand 202532, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    11. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    12. John C. Whitehead & Thomas J. Hoban, 1999. "Testing for Temporal Reliability in Contingent Valuation with Time for Changes in Factors Affecting Demand," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(3), pages 453-465.
    13. Carmelo J. León & Jorge E. Araña, 2012. "The Dynamics of Preference Elicitation after an Environmental Disaster: Stability and Emotional Load," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(2), pages 362-381.
    14. Tisdell, Clem & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2008. "Contingent valuation as a dynamic process," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1443-1458, August.
    15. Gonzalez, Matias & Leon, Carmelo J., 2003. "Consumption process and multiple valuation of landscape attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 159-169, June.
    16. Marta Meleddu, 2016. "Repeating discrete choice experiments to estimate public preferences in a case of costal land use policy," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(1), pages 47-72.
    17. Tisdell, Clement A. & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2005. "Dynamic Processes in the Contingent Valuation of an Endangered Mammal Species," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 55064, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    18. Gebeyehu Fetene & Søren Olsen & Ole Bonnichsen, 2014. "Disentangling the Pure Time Effect From Site and Preference Heterogeneity Effects in Benefit Transfer: An Empirical Investigation of Transferability," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(4), pages 583-611, December.
    19. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    20. Rolfe, John & Dyack, Brenda, 2019. "Testing Temporal Stability of Recreation Values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 75-83.
    21. Wanggi Jaung & Louis Putzel & Gary Q. Bull & Diswandi Diswandi & Witardi & Markum, 2019. "Temporal Reliability of Willingness to Pay for Payments for Environmental Services: Lessons from Lombok, Indonesia," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(04), pages 1-22, October.
    22. Jie He & Bing Zhang, 2021. "Current Air Pollution and Willingness to Pay for Better Air Quality: Revisiting the Temporal Reliability of the Contingent Valuation Method," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(1), pages 135-168, May.
    23. Lew, Daniel K. & Wallmo, Kristy, 2017. "Temporal stability of stated preferences for endangered species protection from choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 87-97.
    24. Brian Roach & Kevin J. Boyle & Michael Welsh, 2002. "Testing Bid Design Effects in Multiple-Bounded, Contingent-Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(1), pages 121-131.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:ajagec:v:77:y:1995:i:3:p:613-619.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.