|Appears in Collections:||Faculty of Social Sciences Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Survey modes comparison in contingent valuation: Internet panels and mail surveys|
willingness to pay
|Citation:||Ryan M, Mentzakis E, Matheson C & Bond C (2019) Survey modes comparison in contingent valuation: Internet panels and mail surveys. Health Economics. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3983|
|Abstract:||Stated preferences methods are extensively applied in health economics to elicit preferences. Although mailed surveys were commonly used to collect data, internet panel (IP) surveys are being increasingly used. This raises questions about the validity of responses and estimated willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) values generated from IP surveys. We conduct the first study in health to compare a contingent valuation IP survey with a mailed survey using the electoral roll. Our IP has a higher response rate and lower item missing response rate. The difference is reduced but remains when restricting comparisons with valid WTPs. Sample characteristics differ, with significant differences between modes for gender, age, income, and attitudes and knowledge. Although difference in WTP values exist, with the IP resulting in higher values, we find limited evidence that such differences are statistically significant. The mail survey has lower initial cost per response; however, once restricting samples to valid WTP responses with nonmissing respondent information, the cost per response across modes is similar. Our results, suggesting that IPs generate valid and cost‐effective values, are encouraging as researchers move increasingly to IPs to collect preference data.|
|Rights:||This item has been embargoed for a period. During the embargo please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.|
|Notes:||Output Status: Forthcoming/Available Online|
|mandy economic letter paper resubmitted 2019.pdf||Fulltext - Accepted Version||918.14 kB||Adobe PDF||Under Embargo until 2020-12-12 Request a copy|
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependent on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact email@example.com providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.