Construct Validity of Dichotomous and Polychotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions

In this note we conduct construct validity tests for dichotomous choice (DC) and polychotomous choice (PC) contingent valuation questions. Contrary to previous results, we find that DC and PC estimates of willingness to pay are theoretically valid, convergent valid, and similar in terms of statistical precision. Similar to previous results, PC respondents are less sensitive to information than DC respondents. We conclude that DC and PC valuation questions are construct valid for this study. Sequential PC valuation questions could be used in studies where obtaining information about the certainty or intensity of respondent preferences would be useful.

[1]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques , 1988 .

[2]  Glenn C. Blomquist,et al.  Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent , 1995 .

[3]  T. Cameron.  Interval Estimates of Non-Market Resource Values from Referendum Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1991 .

[4]  M. Johannesson,et al.  Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy--further results. , 1993, Journal of health economics.

[5]  R. Carson,et al.  Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1995 .

[6]  Leif Mattsson,et al.  Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. , 1995 .

[7]  B. Kriström.  Comparing continuous and discrete contingent valuation questions , 1993 .

[8]  J. Cooper.  A Comparison of Approaches to Calculating Confidence Intervals for Benefit Measures from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1994 .

[9]  J. Whitehead.  Willingness to pay for quality improvements: comparative statics and interpretation of contingent valuation results. , 1995 .

[10]  G. F. Bishop,et al.  EXPERIMENTS WITH THE MIDDLE RESPONSE ALTERNATIVE IN SURVEY QUESTIONS , 1987 .

[11]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  A New Paradigm for Valuing Non-market Goods Using Referendum Data: Maximum Likelihood Estimation by Censored Logistic Regression' , 1988 .

[12]  P. Jakus.  Averting Behavior in the Presence of Public Spillovers: Household Control of Nuisance Pests , 1994 .

[13]  G. Leopold.  The Federal Register. , 1979, Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU.

[14]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  Combining Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Data for the Valuation of Nonmarket Goods , 1992 .

[15]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Implementing the Convolutions Approach: A Companion to "Measuring the Difference (X-Y) of Simulated Distributions: A Convolutions Approach" , 1994 .

[16]  Glenn C. Blomquist,et al.  Resource Quality Information and Validity of Willingness to Pay in Contingent Valuation , 1998 .

[17]  T. Hoban,et al.  Assessing the Validity and Reliability of Contingent Values: A Comparison of On-Site Users, Off-Site Users, and Non-users , 1995 .

[18]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  An Investigation of Part-Whole Biases in Contingent-Valuation Studies , 1993 .