Knowledge

Common-method variance

Source 📝

393: 83:(CFA) marker technique, and the unmeasured latent method construct (ULMC) technique. Only the CFA marker technique turns out to provide some value, whereas the commonly used Harman test does not turn out to provide such value. A comprehensive example of this technique has been demonstrated by Williams et al. (2010). Kock (2015) discusses a full collinearity test that is successful in the identification of common method bias with a model that nevertheless passes standard convergent and discriminant validity assessment criteria based on a CFA. 49:, the intercorrelations among them can be inflated or deflated depending upon several factors. Although it is sometimes assumed that CMV affects all variables, evidence suggests that whether or not the correlation between two variables is affected by CMV is a function of both the method and the particular constructs being measured. 44:
the measures are assumed to represent" or equivalently as "systematic error variance shared among variables measured with and introduced as a function of the same method and/or source". For example, an electronic survey method might influence results for those who might be unfamiliar with an
66:
remedies exist that help to avoid or minimize possible common method variance. Important remedies have been compiled and discussed by Chang et al. (2010), Lindell & Whitney (2001) and Podsakoff et al. (2003).
158:
Richardson, H.A.; Simmering, M.J.; Sturman, M.C. (October 2009). "A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance".
195:
Williams, L. J.; Brown, B. K. (1994). "Method variance in organizational behavior and human resources research: Effects on correlations, path coefficients, and hypothesis testing".
313:
Williams, L.J.; Hartman, N.; Cavazotte, F. (July 2010). "Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique".
458: 434: 41: 453: 45:
electronic survey interface differently than for those who might be familiar. If measures are affected by CMV or
427: 105:"Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies" 80: 355:"Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: An illustration and recommendations" 104: 468: 340: 420: 408: 463: 222:
Spector, P. E. (2006). "Method Variance in Organizational Research: Truth or Urban Legend?".
354: 8: 79:
techniques to test for common method variance: the correlational marker technique, the
17: 137: 392: 283: 369: 322: 295: 262: 231: 204: 175: 167: 127: 119: 404: 299: 123: 21: 103:
Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. (October 2003).
447: 326: 235: 171: 25: 284:"Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs" 208: 141: 132: 373: 267: 250: 37: 400: 341:
Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach.
180: 75:
Using simulated data sets, Richardson et al. (2009) investigate three
76: 63: 102: 251:"Common method variance in international business research" 248: 157: 312: 36:) is the spurious "variance that is attributable to the 249:
Chang, S.-J.; van Witteloostuijn, A.; Eden, L. (2010).
343:
International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1-10.
197:
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
362:Journal of the Association for Information Systems 445: 153: 151: 98: 96: 281: 428: 194: 148: 93: 306: 435: 421: 275: 266: 255:Journal of International Business Studies 179: 131: 352: 242: 282:Lindell, M. K.; Whitney, D. J. (2001). 221: 446: 459:Statistical deviation and dispersion 387: 70: 57: 13: 14: 480: 391: 315:Organizational Research Methods 224:Organizational Research Methods 160:Organizational Research Methods 353:Kock, N.; Lynn, G. S. (2012). 346: 333: 215: 188: 1: 288:Journal of Applied Psychology 112:Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 407:. You can help Knowledge by 81:confirmatory factor analysis 7: 52: 10: 485: 386: 300:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114 124:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 40:method rather than to the 327:10.1177/1094428110366036 236:10.1177/1094428105284955 172:10.1177/1094428109332834 20:, (e.g., applied to the 454:Latent variable models 403:-related article is a 209:10.1006/obhd.1994.1011 30:common-method variance 374:10.17705/1jais.00302 268:10.1057/jibs.2009.88 47:common-method bias 18:applied statistics 416: 415: 339:Kock, N. (2015). 476: 469:Statistics stubs 437: 430: 423: 395: 388: 378: 377: 359: 350: 344: 337: 331: 330: 310: 304: 303: 279: 273: 272: 270: 246: 240: 239: 219: 213: 212: 192: 186: 185: 183: 155: 146: 145: 135: 109: 100: 71:Ex post remedies 58:Ex ante remedies 484: 483: 479: 478: 477: 475: 474: 473: 444: 443: 442: 441: 384: 382: 381: 357: 351: 347: 338: 334: 311: 307: 280: 276: 247: 243: 220: 216: 193: 189: 156: 149: 107: 101: 94: 89: 73: 60: 55: 22:social sciences 12: 11: 5: 482: 472: 471: 466: 461: 456: 440: 439: 432: 425: 417: 414: 413: 396: 380: 379: 368:(7): 546–580. 345: 332: 321:(3): 477–514. 305: 294:(1): 114–121. 274: 241: 230:(2): 221–232. 214: 203:(2): 185–209. 187: 166:(4): 762–800. 147: 133:2027.42/147112 118:(5): 879–903. 91: 90: 88: 85: 72: 69: 59: 56: 54: 51: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 481: 470: 467: 465: 464:Psychometrics 462: 460: 457: 455: 452: 451: 449: 438: 433: 431: 426: 424: 419: 418: 412: 410: 406: 402: 397: 394: 390: 389: 385: 375: 371: 367: 363: 356: 349: 342: 336: 328: 324: 320: 316: 309: 301: 297: 293: 289: 285: 278: 269: 264: 260: 256: 252: 245: 237: 233: 229: 225: 218: 210: 206: 202: 198: 191: 182: 177: 173: 169: 165: 161: 154: 152: 143: 139: 134: 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 106: 99: 97: 92: 84: 82: 78: 68: 65: 50: 48: 43: 39: 35: 31: 27: 26:psychometrics 23: 19: 409:expanding it 398: 383: 365: 361: 348: 335: 318: 314: 308: 291: 287: 277: 258: 254: 244: 227: 223: 217: 200: 196: 190: 163: 159: 115: 111: 74: 61: 46: 33: 29: 15: 261:: 178–184. 38:measurement 448:Categories 401:statistics 181:1813/72364 87:References 42:constructs 142:14516251 62:Several 53:Remedies 77:ex post 64:ex ante 140:  399:This 358:(PDF) 108:(PDF) 405:stub 138:PMID 24:and 370:doi 323:doi 296:doi 263:doi 232:doi 205:doi 176:hdl 168:doi 128:hdl 120:doi 34:CMV 28:), 16:In 450:: 366:13 364:. 360:. 319:13 317:. 292:86 290:. 286:. 259:41 257:. 253:. 226:. 201:57 199:. 174:. 164:12 162:. 150:^ 136:. 126:. 116:88 114:. 110:. 95:^ 436:e 429:t 422:v 411:. 376:. 372:: 329:. 325:: 302:. 298:: 271:. 265:: 238:. 234:: 228:9 211:. 207:: 184:. 178:: 170:: 144:. 130:: 122:: 32:(

Index

applied statistics
social sciences
psychometrics
measurement
constructs
ex ante
ex post
confirmatory factor analysis


"Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies"
doi
10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
hdl
2027.42/147112
PMID
14516251


doi
10.1177/1094428109332834
hdl
1813/72364
doi
10.1006/obhd.1994.1011
doi
10.1177/1094428105284955
"Common method variance in international business research"
doi
10.1057/jibs.2009.88

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.