Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation studies of health care services: Should we ask twice?

Lookup NU author(s): Dr Jytte Seested Nielsen


Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.


The main purpose of the present study was to test for outcome scope insensitivity. Respondents were initially asked to value one of two severe health states by way of a time-trade-off (TTO) exercise. Subsequent to the TTO exercise all respondents were asked to value an intervention, which offered a reduction in risk of falling into the health state they had evaluated. All respondents were subsequent to this initial CV exercise asked to value the same risk reduction, but in this case the outcome was death. Although our study passes the internal scope test, there is not a high degree of sensitivity to outcome. As many as 68% of respondents stated an identical maximum WTP in first and second CV valuation exercise implying that they value the interventions equally despite the fact that the health state presented in the initial CV question was deemed far better than death according to the TTO responses given by the same respondents. In contrast, the external scope test (comparison of response to initial CV across study arms) fared much better.

Publication metadata

Author(s): Gyrd-Hansen D, Kjær T, Nielsen JS

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: Health Economics

Year: 2012

Volume: 21

Issue: 2

Pages: 101-112

Print publication date: 01/02/2012

ISSN (print): 1057-9230

ISSN (electronic): 1099-1050

Publisher: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.


DOI: 10.1002/hec.1690


Altmetrics provided by Altmetric


Find at Newcastle University icon    Link to this publication