The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Method Effects, Measurement Error, and Substantive Conclusions
Abstract
Common method variance is routinely viewed as a pervasive problem in organizational research, one that undermines good science and biases empirical conclusions. The authors review research that has used multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) designs to estimate the magnitude of common method variance in organizational research. The results of this study show that method variance accounts for less variance (18%) than has been suggested by previous reviews. The authors also consider simultaneously the attenuating effect of measurement error with the inflationary effect of common method variance on observed relationships. Results indicate that although common method variance does have an inflationary effect on observed relationships, this effect is almost completely offset by the attenuating effect of measurement error.
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
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
On the Theory of Scales of Measurement
Stevens, S. S. (1946) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.103.2684.677 · Cited by 4,761 · cited 3×
“We also argue below that recent research, which has shown that some measurement facets that once were considered mere measurement methods should actually be more properly regarded as comprising aspects of domain-specific substantive nomological networks (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955), and not merely alternative procedures f…”
BackgroundResultInfluential�ber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik
Heisenberg, W. (1927) · Zeitschrift f�r Physik · doi:10.1007/bf01397280 · Cited by 4,278
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004) · doi:10.4135/9781412985031 · Cited by 3,023
Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: reality or artifact?
Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1989) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.3.462 · Cited by 1,616
Common 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 14×
“FMjMj’s can also be estimated from a primary CFA of MTMM data or estimates from previous studies can be located in table 1 by Buckley et al. (1990) and the current study’s Table 2.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe impact of midpoint responses and reverse coding on survey data
Weems, G. H., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2001) · Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development · doi:10.1080/07481756.2002.12069033 · Cited by 196
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 methods variance detection in business research
Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008 · Cited by 3,519
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
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
Hulland, J., Baumgartner, H., & Smith, K. M. (2018) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-017-0532-y · Cited by 1,067
Metadata
- Authors
- Lance, C. E., Dawson, B., Birkelbach, D., & Hoffman, B. J.
- Venue
- Organizational Research Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-01-28
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 435-455
- ISSN
- 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7425
- OpenAlex
- W2161917817
- Cited by
- 355
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 41.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
