Cited by 1,380Psychometric Methodologies and TestingBusiness Strategies and Management ResearchMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Common methods bias: does common methods variance really bias results?

Doty, D. Harold, Glick, William H.·1998·Organizational Research Methods

Abstract

Methods variance and its effects are at the center of a debate in organizational science. Most of the debate, however, is focused on the prevalence of common methods variance and ignores common methods bias, or the divergence between observed and true relationships among constructs. This article assesses the level of common methods bias in all multitrait-multimethod correlation matrices published over a 12-year period in a set of six social science journals using a combination of structural equation modeling and meta-analysis. The results indicate that only 46% of the variation in measures is attributable to the constructs, that 32% of the observed variation in measures is attributable to common methods variance, and that common methods variance results in a 26% bias in the observed relationships among constructs. This level of bias is cause for concern but does not invalidate many research findings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/109442819814002

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H.
Affiliations
  • Syracuse University (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
Venue
Organizational Research Methods
Published
1998-10
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
374-406
ISSN
  • 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7425
OpenAlex
W2168082050
Cited by
1,380
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 62 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 67 · 2016: 63 · 2015: 64 · 2014: 95 · 2013: 89 · 2012: 92
FWCI
9.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Organizational Research Methods (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Business Strategies and Management Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
measurement bias, construct relationships, measurement error, organizational analysis

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