The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Common Method Bias in Public Management Studies
Open accessAbstract
The questionnaire survey is one of the most commonly used methods of data collection in public management research. These surveys often provide the information used to measure both the independent and dependent variables in an analysis. However, this introduces the risk of common method bias—a serious methodological challenge that has not received much attention as a distinct topic in public management research. We discuss the challenge of common method bias in relation to public management studies and illustrate the problem using an analysis of intrinsic work motivation and sickness absence. Thereafter, we discuss solutions for reducing common method bias when it is not possible to use different methods.
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
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
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920638601200408 · Cited by 17,102
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
Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511811241 · Cited by 8,092
Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses
Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpi014 · Cited by 6,223 · cited 1×
“When examining interaction effects, one is often also interested in estimating the marginal effect size of one of the independent variables at different fixed levels of the other independent variable (or the moderator variable) included in the interaction (Brambor, Clark, and Golder 2006).”
BackgroundNegative affectivity: the disposition to experience aversive emotional states
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.96.3.465 · Cited by 4,636
Common Method Bias in Marketing: Causes, Mechanisms, and Procedural Remedies
MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2012.08.001 · Cited by 3,051
Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review
Nederhof, A. J. (1985) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420150303 · Cited by 2,340 · cited 1×
“Furthermore, several contributions have argued that method bias can be produced if the item wording elicits socially desirable responses (e.g., Nederhof 1985; Perry 1996), if the scale properties are similar across different items (Podsakoff et al. 2003), or if items are only positively or only…”
BackgroundCommon methods bias: does common methods variance really bias results?
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/109442819814002 · Cited by 1,380 · cited 5×
“Hence, in addition to being caused by item formulation, item complexity may also be a factor of abstractness in the construct or notion itself (Doty and Glick 1998).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialResponse bias, social desirability and dissimulation
Furnham, A. (1986) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/0191-8869(86)90014-0 · Cited by 1,033
Response Sets and Test Validity
Cronbach, L. J. (1946) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316444600600405 · Cited by 898
How (Not) to Solve the Problem: An Evaluation of Scholarly Responses to Common Source Bias
Favero, N., & Bullock, J. B. (2015) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muu020 · Cited by 372
Cited by
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
Understanding and managing the threat of common method bias: Detection, prevention and control
Kock, F., Berbekova, A., & Assaf, A. G. (2021) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104330 · Cited by 1,692
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
Big data, big decisions: The impact of big data on board level decision-making
Merendino, A., Dibb, S., Meadows, M., Quinn, L., Wilson, D., Simkin, L., & Canhoto, A. (2018) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.029 · Cited by 239
Robot will take your job: Innovation for an era of artificial intelligence
Rampersad, G. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.019 · Cited by 240
Metadata
- Authors
- Jakobsen, M., & Jensen, R.
- Venue
- International Public Management Journal
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-12-22
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-30
- ISSN
- 1096-7494 (ISSN-L)
- 1559-3169
- OpenAlex
- W2109360959
- Cited by
- 831
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 105.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
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.
