Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,392

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What Reviewers Should Expect from Authors Regarding Common Method Bias in Organizational Research

Conway, James M., Lance, Charles E.·2010·Journal of Business and Psychology
DOI 10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. Arora, R. (1982). Validation of an S-O-R model for situation, enduring and response components of involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 505–516. · DOI
  2. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1990). Assessing method variance in multitrait-multimethod matrices: The case of self-reported affect and perceptions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 547–560. · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.547 · Paper page
  3. Becker, T. E., & Cote, J. A. (1994). Additive and multiplicative method effects in applied psychological research: An empirical assessment of three models. Journal of Management, 20, 625–641. · doi:10.1177/014920639402000306
  4. Bozeman, D., & Perrewé, P. (2001). The effect of item content overlap on Organizational Commitment Questionnaire–turnover cognitions relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 161–173. · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.161 · Paper page
  5. Brannick, M. T., Chan, D., Conway, J. M., Lance, C. E., & Spector, D. (in press). What is method variance and how can we cope with it? A panel discussion. Organizational Research Methods.
  6. Campbell, J. (1982). Editorial: Some remarks from the outgoing editor. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 691–700. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Chan, D. (2001). Method effects of positive affectivity, negative affectivity, and impression management in self-reports of work attitudes. Human Performance, 14, 77–96. · DOI
  8. Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad? In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and metholodogical myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 311–338). New York: Routledge.
  9. Conway, J. M. (2002). Method variance and method bias in I/O psychology. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 344–365). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  10. Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1987). Estimating trait, method and error variance: Generalizing across 70 construct validation studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 315–318. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Crampton, S., & Wagner, J. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67–76. · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.1.67 · Paper page
  12. Dooley, W. K., Shaffer, D. R., Lance, C. E., & Williamson, G. M. (2007). Informal care can be better than adequate: Development and evaluation of the exemplary care scale. Rehabilitation Psychology, 52, 359–369. · DOI
  13. Feldt, L. S., & Brennan, R. L. (1989). Reliability. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 105–146). Washington, DC: American Council on Education and National Council on Measurement in Education.
  14. Hoffman, B. J., Lance, C. E., Bynum, B. H., & Gentry, W. A. (2010). Rater source effects are alive and well after all. Personnel Psychology, 63, 119–151. · DOI
  15. Hoffman, B. J., & Woehr, D. J. (2009). Disentangling the meaning of multisource performance rating source and dimension factors. Personnel Psychology, 62, 735–765. · DOI
  16. Hunter, J. (1997). Needed: A ban on the significance test. Psychological Science, 8, 3–7. · DOI · Paper page
  17. James, L. A., & James, L. R. (1989). Integrating work environment perceptions: Explorations into the measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 739–751. · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.5.739 · Paper page
  18. Judge, T., Bono, J., & Locke, E. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237–249. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Lance, C. E., Baranik, L. E., Lau, A. R., & Scharlau, E. A. (2009). If it ain’t trait it must be method: (Mis)application of the multitrait-multimethod design in organizational research. In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and metholodogical myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 339–362). New York: Routledge.
  20. Lance, C. E., Baxter, D., & Mahan, R. P. (2006). Multi-source performance measurement: A reconceptualization. In W. Bennett, C. E. Lance, & D. J. Woehr (Eds.), Performance measurement: Current perspectives and future challenges (pp. 49–76). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  21. Lance, C. E., Dawson, B., Birklebach, D., & Hoffman, B. J. (in press). Method effects, measurement error, and substantive conclusions. Organizational Research Methods. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Lance, C. E., Hoffman, B. J., Baranik, L. E., & Gentry, W. A. (2008). Rater source factors represent important subcomponents of the criterion construct space, not rater bias. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 223–232. · DOI
  23. Lance, C. E., Teachout, M. S., & Donnelly, T. M. (1992). Specification of the criterion construct space: An application of hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 437–452. · DOI
  24. Lance, C. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2009). Introduction. In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and metholodogical myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 1–4). New York: Routledge.
  25. Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114–121. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
  27. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Ahearne, M. (1998). Some possible antecedents and consequences of in-role and extra-role salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 62, 87–98. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Mallard, A. G. C., & Lance, C. E. (1998). Development and evaluation of a parent–employee interrole conflict scale. Social Indicators Research, 45, 343–370. · DOI
  29. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 13–103). Washington, DC: American Council on Education and National Council on Measurement in Education.
  30. Motowidlo, S., Borman, W., & Schmit, M. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 71–83. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Mount, M. K., Judge, T. A., Scullen, S. E., Sytsma, M. R., & Hezlett, S. A. (1998). Trait, rater, and level effects in 360-degree performance ratings. Personnel Psychology, 51, 557–576. · DOI
  32. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Ones, D., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660–679. · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.660 · Paper page
  34. Organ, D., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Podsakoff, P., & Todor, W. (1985). Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and group processes and productivity. Journal of Management, 11, 55–73. · DOI
  36. Putka, D. M., & Sackett, P. R. (2010). Reliability and validity. In J. L. Farr & N. T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 9–49). New York: Routledge.
  37. Richardson, H., Simmering, M., & Sturman, M. (2009). A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 762–800. · DOI · Paper page
  38. Scullen, S. E., Mount, M. K., & Goff, M. (2000). Understanding the latent structure of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 956–970. · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.956 · Paper page
  39. Scullen, S. E., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Evidence of the construct validity of developmental ratings of managerial performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 50–66. · DOI
  40. Shalley, C., Gilson, L., & Blum, T. (2009). Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 489–505. · DOI · Paper page
  41. Spector, P. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232. · DOI · Paper page
  42. Tornow, W. W. (1993). Perceptions or reality: Is multi-perspective measurement a means or an end? Human Resource Management, 32, 221–229. · DOI · Paper page
  43. Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525–531. · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.525 · Paper page
  44. Vandenberg, R. J. (2006). Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Where, pray tell, did they get this idea? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 194–201. · DOI · Paper page
  45. Westaby, J., & Braithwaite, K. (2003). Specific factors underlying reemployment self-efficacy: Comparing control belief and motivational reason methods for the recently unemployed. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39, 415–437. · DOI
  46. Widaman, K. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait-multimethod data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 1–26. · DOI · Paper page
  47. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1994). An alternative approach to method effects by using latent-variable models: Applications in organizational behavior research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 323–331. · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.3.323 · Paper page

Cited by

See all 2,392

Metadata

Authors
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E.
Venue
Journal of Business and Psychology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2010-05-22
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
325-334
ISSN
  • 0889-3268 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-353X
DOI
10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6
OpenAlex
W2038788228
Cited by
2,392
References
8
FWCI
93.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What Reviewers Should Expect from Authors Regarding Common Method Bias in Organizational Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6
The paper
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What Reviewers Should Expect from Authors Regarding Common Method Bias in Organizational Research. Journal of Business and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.