The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing the impact of common method variance on higher order multidimensional constructs.
Open accessAbstract
Researchers are often concerned with common method variance (CMV) in cases where it is believed to bias relationships of predictors with criteria. However, CMV may also bias relationships within sets of predictors; this is cause for concern, given the rising popularity of higher order multidimensional constructs. The authors examined the extent to which CMV inflates interrelationships among indicators of higher order constructs and the relationships of those constructs with criteria. To do so, they examined core self-evaluation, a higher order construct comprising self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, emotional stability, and locus of control. Across 2 studies, the authors systematically applied statistical (Study 1) and procedural (Study 2) CMV remedies to core self-evaluation data collected from multiple samples. Results revealed that the nature of the higher order construct and its relationship with job satisfaction were altered when the CMV remedies were applied. Implications of these findings for higher order constructs are discussed.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Society and the Adolescent Self-Image
Rosenberg, M. (1965) · doi:10.1515/9781400876136 · Cited by 30,126
A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960) · Journal of Consulting Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0047358 · Cited by 8,686
To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1207/s15328007sem0902_1 · Cited by 6,552
POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL: MEASUREMENT AND RELATIONSHIP WITH PERFORMANCE AND SATISFACTION
LUTHANS, F., AVOLIO, B. J., AVEY, J. B., & NORMAN, S. M. (2007) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x · Cited by 4,809
Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An Interpersonal Influence Perspective
Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R., & Cowles, D. (1990) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299005400306 · Cited by 4,763
The Psychology of Survey Response
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511819322 · Cited by 4,734
Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective.
Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.305 · Cited by 3,618
Higher-order factors of the Big Five.
Digman, J. M. (1997) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.73.6.1246 · Cited by 1,839
Cited by
Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 · Cited by 15,744
Common method bias: It’ s bad, it’ s complex, it’ s widespread, and it’ s not easy to fix
Podsakoff, P. M., Podsakoff, N. P., Williams, L. J., Huang, C., & Yang, J. (2024) · Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-040030 · Cited by 1,899
A Review of Self-Determination Theory’s Basic Psychological Needs at Work
Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C.-H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206316632058 · Cited by 1,465
Self-citationGagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., van den Broeck, A., Aspeli, A. K., Bellerose, J., Benabou, C., Chemolli, E., Güntert, S. T., et al. (2015) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2013.877892 · Cited by 1,051
Common method bias in applied settings: The dilemma of researching in organizations
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2020) · Australian Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0312896219871976 · Cited by 997
Metadata
- Authors
- Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Djurdjevic, E.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2011-07
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 744-761
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W1974076590
- Cited by
- 523
- References
- 15
- FWCI
- 16.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Assessing the impact of common method variance on higher order multidimensional constructs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0021504
- The paper
- Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Djurdjevic, E. (2011). Assessing the impact of common method variance on higher order multidimensional constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021504
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.
