The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Illusion of Statistical Control: Control Variable Practice in Management Research
Abstract
The authors extend previous recommendations for improved control variable (CV) practice in management research by mapping the objectives for using statistical control to recommendations for research practice. Including CVs in research designs to permit statistical control of “nuisance” variance is a common research practice that is subject to well-documented and potentially serious problems. Yet because CVs are frequently weakly related to focal variables, they rarely influence the interpretation of results. As a result, current practice offers an illusion of statistical control when in fact little control actually occurs. The authors extend the growing literature on CV practice by examining the ambiguity of researchers' stated purposes for using statistical control that makes it difficult to determine whether common CV practice accomplishes any of these intents effectively. Guidelines for improving research practice are offered, including adopting a conservative stance toward the inclusion of CVs in the analysis of quasiexperimental and correlational designs guided by the principle “When in doubt, leave them out.”
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
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532
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
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 1×
“…CVs is further complicated because an IV and CV may share combinations of meaningful and contaminant variance, a problem that also occurs in the study of common method variance (e.g., Doty & Glick, 1998; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003; Spector, 2006; Williams & Anderson, 1994).”
BackgroundMethodological Urban Legends: The Misuse of Statistical Control Variables
Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2011) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428110369842 · Cited by 1,146
Risk Factors, Confounding, and the Illusion of Statistical Control
Christenfeld, N. J. S., Sloan, R. P., Carroll, D., & Greenland, S. (2004) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.psy.0000140008.70959.41 · Cited by 260 · cited 2×
“Conceptually we build on the work of earlier scholars (Becker, 2005; Breaugh, 2005, 2008; Breaugh & Arnold, 2007; Christianfeld et al., 2004, Dohrenwend et al., 1984, Hull et al., 1992; Meehl, 1970, 1971; Newcombe, 2003; Spector & Brannick, 1995, 2011; Spector et al., 2000) by recognizing different…”
Background
Cited by
A Critical Review and Best‐Practice Recommendations for Control Variable Usage
Bernerth, J. B., & Aguinis, H. (2016) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/peps.12103 · Cited by 1,731
Becker, T. E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J. A., Carlson, K. D., Edwards, J. R., & Spector, P. E. (2016) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.2053 · Cited by 989
Self-citationAbusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review
Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206315573997 · Cited by 706
Beal, D. J. (2015) · Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111335 · Cited by 436
Well, I’m tired of tryin’! Organizational citizenship behavior and citizenship fatigue
Bolino, M. C., Hsiung, H.-H., Harvey, J., & LePine, J. A. (2015) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0037583 · Cited by 430
Metadata
- Authors
- Carlson, K. D., & Wu, J.
- Venue
- Organizational Research Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-12-21
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 413-435
- ISSN
- 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7425
- OpenAlex
- W2168561667
- Cited by
- 666
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 23.84
- 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.
