IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v28y2008i1p90-101.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Construct Validity of the Bidding Game, Binary with Follow-up, and a Novel Structured Haggling Question Format in Determining Willingness to Pay for Insecticide-Treated Mosquito Nets

Author

Listed:
  • Obinna Onwujekwe

    (Gates Malaria Partnership, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK, onwujekwe@yahoo.co.uk, Health Policy Research Unit, Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, College of Medicine, University of Nigeria, Enugu-Campus)

  • Julia Fox-Rushby

    (Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK)

  • Kara Hanson

    (Health Policy Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK)

Abstract

This study examines Whether making question formats better fit the cultural context of markets Would improve the construct validity of estimates of Willingness to pay (WTP). WTP for insecticide-treated mosquito nets Was elicited using the bidding game, binary With follow-up (BWFU), and a novel structured haggling technique (SH) that mimicked price taking in market places in the study area. The results show that different question formats generated different distributions of WTP. Following a comparison of alternative models for each question format, construct validity Was compared using the most consistently appropriate model across question formats for the positive WTP values, in this case, ordinary least squares. Three criteria (the number of statistically significant explanatory variables that had the anticipated sign, the value of the adjusted R 2 , and the proportion that Were statistically significant With the anticipated sign) used to assess the relative performance of each question format indicated that SH performed best and BWFU Worst. However, differences in the levels of income, education, and percentage of household heads responding to the different question formats across the samples complicate this conclusion. Hence, the results suggest that the SH technique is Worthy of further investigation and use.

Suggested Citation

  • Obinna Onwujekwe & Julia Fox-Rushby & Kara Hanson, 2008. "Construct Validity of the Bidding Game, Binary with Follow-up, and a Novel Structured Haggling Question Format in Determining Willingness to Pay for Insecticide-Treated Mosquito Nets," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 90-101, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:1:p:90-101
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07308748
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07308748
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X07308748?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shackley, Phil & Donaldson, Cam, 2002. "Should we use willingness to pay to elicit community preferences for health care?: New evidence from using a 'marginal' approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 971-991, November.
    2. Stéphane Luchini & Christel Protière & Jean‐Paul Moatti, 2003. "Eliciting several willingness to pay in a single contingent valuation survey: application to health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 51-64, January.
    3. Cam Donaldson & Andrew Jones & Tracy Mapp & Jan Abel Olson, 1998. "Limited dependent variables in willingness to pay studies: applications in health care," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 667-677.
    4. Elise H. Golan & Mordechai Shechter, 1993. "Contingent Valuation of Supplemental Health Care in Israel," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 13(4), pages 302-310, December.
    5. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Callan, Aoife & O'Shea, Eamon, 2015. "Willingness to pay for telecare programmes to support independent living: Results from a contingent valuation study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 94-102.
    2. Mataria, Awad & Donaldson, Cam & Luchini, Stephane & Moatti, Jean-Paul, 2004. "A stated preference approach to assessing health care-quality improvements in Palestine: from theoretical validity to policy implications," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1285-1311, November.
    3. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    4. Karine Lamiraud & Robert Oxoby & Cam Donaldson, 2015. "Incremental willingness to pay," Working Papers hal-01205938, HAL.
    5. Mataria, Awad & Giacaman, Rita & Khatib, Rana & Moatti, Jean-Paul, 2006. "Impoverishment and patients' "willingness" and "ability" to pay for improving the quality of health care in Palestine: An assessment using the contingent valuation method," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 312-328, February.
    6. Mark Pennington & Manuel Gomes & Cam Donaldson, 2017. "Handling Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 623-634, August.
    7. van der Star, Sanne M. & van den Berg, Bernard, 2011. "Individual responsibility and health-risk behaviour: A contingent valuation study from the ex ante societal perspective," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 300-311, August.
    8. Pavel, Md Sadik & Chakrabarty, Sayan & Gow, Jeff, 2014. "Assessing willingness to pay for health care quality improvements," MPRA Paper 68591, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Nathalie Havet & Magali Morelle & Raphaël Remonnay & Marie-Odile Carrere, 2012. "Cancer patients’ willingness to pay for blood transfusions at home: results from a contingent valuation study in a French cancer network," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(3), pages 289-300, June.
    10. Karine Lamiraud & Robert Oxoby & Cam Donaldson, 2016. "Incremental willingness to pay: a theoretical and empirical exposition," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(1), pages 101-123, January.
    11. Whynes, David K. & Frew, Emma & Wolstenholme, Jane L., 2003. "A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 555-574, July.
    12. Thomas Hammerschmidt & Hans‐Peter Zeitler & Reiner Leidl, 2004. "A utility‐theoretic approach to the aggregation of willingness to pay measured in decomposed scenarios: development and empirical test," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(4), pages 345-361, April.
    13. Stewart, Jennifer M. & O'Shea, Eamon & Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 2002. "Do ordering effects matter in willingness-to-pay studies of health care?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 585-599, July.
    14. Lamiraud, Karine & Oxoby, Robert & Donaldson, Cam, 2016. "Reference Dependence and Incremental WTP," ESSEC Working Papers WP1609, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    15. Sanjib Saha & Ulf-G. Gerdtham & Faiza Siddiqui & Louise Bennet, 2018. "Valuing a Lifestyle Intervention for Middle Eastern Immigrants at Risk of Diabetes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-13, February.
    16. Rinaldo Brau & Matteo Lippi Bruni & Anna Maria Pinna, 2010. "Public versus private demand for covering long-term care expenditures," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(28), pages 3651-3668.
    17. Leguizamon, Susane & Christafore, David, 2014. "Racial Differences in Willingness to Pay for Hospital Access," MPRA Paper 55926, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. George Houtven & Melonie Sullivan & Chris Dockins, 2008. "Cancer premiums and latency effects: A risk tradeoff approach for valuing reductions in fatal cancer risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 179-199, April.
    19. O'Shea, Eamon & Gannon, Brenda & Kennelly, Brendan, 2008. "Eliciting preferences for resource allocation in mental health care in Ireland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 359-370, December.
    20. Obinna Onwujekwe, 2001. "Searching for a better willingness to pay elicitation method in rural Nigeria: the binary question with follow‐up method versus the bidding game technique," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 147-158, March.

    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:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:1:p:90-101. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.