Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Test-retest reliability of willingness to pay

  • Original Papers
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We describe the results of a survey designed to assess the test-retest reliability of a method of establishing willingness to pay. Willingness to pay values for a hypothetical intervention were elicited from a randomly selected, population sample by face-to-face interview on three occasions over a period of 5 weeks. Test-retest reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation and by generalizability analysis. Reliability was acceptable but not substantial, and there was a statistically significant shift in mean value between first and second assessments. The greatest source of variation in values was the participants. There was also a substantial interaction between time and participants, suggesting that some respondents changed their answers at follow-up. The results were sensitive to the high valuations provided by four of the participants, however.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P et al. (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58: 4601–4614

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bravo G, Potvin L (1991) Estimating the reliability of continuous measures with Cronbach’s alpha or the intraclass correlation coefficient: toward the integration of two traditions. J Clin Epidemiol 44: 381–390

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cronbach LJ, Rajaratnam N, Gleser GC (1963) Theory of generalizability: a liberation of reliability theory. Br J Stat Psychol 16: 137–163

    Google Scholar 

  4. Diener A, O’Brien B, Gafni A (1998) Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ 7: 313–326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Donaldson C, Shackley P (1997) Does “process utility” exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Soc Sci Med 44: 699–707

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16: 199–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gafni A (1991) Willingness-to-pay as a measure of benefits: relevant questions in the context of public decision making about health care programs. Med Care 29: 1246–1252

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kish L (1996) Survey sampling. Wiley: New York

  9. Klose T (1999) The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy 47: 97–123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Krabbe PFM, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ (1997) The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods. Soc Sci Med 45: 1641–1652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Marcoulides GA (1999) Generalizability theory: picking up where the Rasch IRT model leaves off? In: Embretson SE, Hershberger SL. (eds) The new rules of measurement: what every psychologist and educator should know. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  12. Norman GR, Streiner DL (2000) Biostatistics: the bare essentials. Becker: Hamilton

  13. O’Brien B, Viramontes JL (1994) Willingness to pay: a valid and reliable measure of health state preference? Med Decis Making 14: 289–297

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. O’Connor AM, Boyd NF, Warde P et al. (1987) Eliciting preferences for alternative drug therapies in oncology: influence of treatment outcome description, elicitation technique and treatment experience on preferences. J Chronic Dis 40: 811–818

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Olsen JA, Smith RD (2001) Theory versus practice: a review of ‘willingness to pay’ in health and health care. Health Econ 10: 39–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ryan M (1998) Valuing psychological factors in the provision of assisted reproductive techniques using the economic instrument of willingness to pay. J Econ Psychol 19: 179–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Shiell A, Hawe P, Fletcher M (2003) Reliability of health utility measures and a test of values clarification. Soc Sci Med 56: 1531–1541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86: 420–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Streiner DL, Norman GR (1995) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development. Oxford University Press: Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  20. Thompson MS, Read JL, Liang M (1984) Feasibility of willingness to pay measurement in chronic arthritis. Med Decis Making 4: 195–215

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Van Agt HM, Essink-Bot ML, Krabbe PF, Bonsel GJ (1994) Test-retest reliability of health state valuations collected with the EuroQol questionnaire. Soc Sci Med 39: 1537–1544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the role played in this research by the survey participants, who gave freely of their time. We thank the interviewers for their diligent attention, Megan Fletcher, Janelle Seymour, and Sue Cameron for their assistance with data collection, Gavin Mooney, Glenn Salkeld, Virginia Wiseman, and Stephen Jan for the advice and insights they each provided during the course of this study and its write up, and Lyn Watson for helpful comment on the statistical analysis. Funding for the fieldwork described here was provided by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council under award number 990516. A.S. and P.H. are both funded by the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research. All views expressed in the paper are the authors’ alone.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Alan Shiell

    Present address: Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive, Calgary, Alberta, T2 N 4N1, Canada

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Canada

    Alan Shiell & Penelope Hawe

  2. Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Alan Shiell

  3. Markin Institute, Calgary, Canada

    Penelope Hawe

Authors
  1. Alan Shiell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Penelope Hawe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alan Shiell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shiell, A., Hawe, P. Test-retest reliability of willingness to pay. Eur J Health Econ 7, 173–178 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-006-0349-y

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-006-0349-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation