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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 88 of the 88 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Common Methods Bias: Does Common Methods Variance Really Bias Results?

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

DOI 10.1177/109442819814002

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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?

Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588 · Cited by 19,933
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
The Handbook of Social Psychology
Gravatt, A. E., Lindzey, G. E., & Aronson, F. (1969) · The Family Coordinator · doi:10.2307/582242 · Cited by 12,518
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
Book Reviews: Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis Larry V. Hedges and Ingram Olkin New York: Academic Press, 1985. xxii + 369 pp
Wasserman, S. S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,377
Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7 · Cited by 8,962
LISREL 7 : user's reference guide
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1989) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 6,783
A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitudes and Task Design
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392563 · Cited by 4,372
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis
(1985) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2009-0-03396-0 · Cited by 2,564

Show all 84 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

10.1177/002224378702400307 · DOI
Campbell, D. T., 1982, New directions for methodology of social and behavioral science: Forms of validity in research, 93
Doty, D. H., Annual Meetings of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Doty, D. H., National Meetings of the Academy of Management
Fiske, D. W., 1982, New directions for methodology of social and behavioral science: Forms of validity in research, 77
10.2307/256218 · DOI
Hackman, J. R., 1980, Work redesign

Sorted by citations

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
“In addition, they note that complex, abstract questions among the systematic error variance components, thereby increasing the bias in the observed relationships between constructs” (Doty & Glick 1998, p. 381). accurate responses is item ambiguity.”
Influential
The job demands-resources model of burnout.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499 · Cited by 13,643
“The second source of data and the second level of analysis were added to avoid method artifacts caused by using only one single method or to find relations (within the individual) that can be predicted by merely applying principles of cognitive consistency (Doty & Click, 1998).”
Network Structure and Knowledge Transfer: The Effects of Cohesion and Range
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3556658 · Cited by 3,592
Method Variance in Organizational Research: Truth or Urban Legend?
Spector, P. E. (2006) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428105284955 · Cited by 3,445
“Doty and Glick (1988) discussed the nature of methods, providing a taxonomy that classified measures along a facet of measurement technique versus data source.”
BackgroundMethod
The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure.
Steel, P. (2007) · Psychological bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65 · Cited by 3,417
From the Editors: Common method variance in international business research
Chang, S., van Witteloostuijn, A. C., & Eden, L. (2010) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.88 · Cited by 3,365
“Previous research estimating the magnitude of the effects did not include JIBS articles; see for example, Doty and Glick (1998) and Cote and Buckley (1987).”
Background
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
The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer
Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1030.0136 · Cited by 2,824
Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428109351241 · Cited by 2,706
“In addition, a metaanalytic study has attempted to establish an average factor by which observed relationships are inflated through CMV, in turn, suggested ways to possibly correct the observed relationships using these estimates (Doty & Glick, 1998).”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
What Reviewers Should Expect from Authors Regarding Common Method Bias in Organizational Research
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010) · Journal of Business and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6 · Cited by 2,585
“While there is a substantial literature about controlling common method bias that targets researchers and authors (e.g., Cote and Buckley 1987; Crampton and Wagner 1994; Lance et al., in press; Podsakoff et al. 2003; Richardson et al. 2009; Spector 2006; Williams et al. 1989) there is very little that advises reviewer…”
Market Orientation: A Meta-Analytic Review and Assessment of its Antecedents and Impact on Performance
Kirca, A. H., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W. O. (2005) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.69.2.24.60761 · Cited by 2,182
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
The Severity of Supply Chain Disruptions: Design Characteristics and Mitigation Capabilities
Craighead, C. W., Blackhurst, J. V., Rungtusanatham, M. J., & Handfield, R. (2007) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2007.00151.x · Cited by 1,809
“By using multiple sources and multiple methods, we intend to reduce the potential for single-source bias and for common-method bias (Crampton & Wagner, 1994; Doty & Glick, 1998).”
Method
Method Variance and Marker Variables: A Review and Comprehensive CFA Marker Technique
Williams, L. J., Hartman, N. S., & Cavazotte, F. (2010) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428110366036 · Cited by 1,689
“Doty and Glick (1998) reanalyzed data from 28 multitrait multimethod studies using the SEM approach.”
MethodResult
Networks, Diversity, and Productivity: The Social Capital of Corporate R&D Teams
Reagans, R. E., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.12.4.502.10637 · Cited by 1,607
A Tale of Three Perspectives: Examining Post Hoc Statistical Techniques for Detection and Correction of Common Method Variance
Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Sturman, M. C. (2009) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428109332834 · Cited by 1,721
“…conceptualizations of CMV incorrectly assume (a) method alone is sufficient to produce bias and (b) all constructs measured with the same method share the same biases (for consistent, although not strictly identical, arguments see Bagozzi & Yi, 1990; Crampton & Wagner, 1994; Doty & Glick, 1998).”
BackgroundMethod
Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of environmental practices: The mediating effect of training
Sarkis, J., Gonzalez‐Torre, P., & Adenso‐Diaz, B. (2010) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2009.10.001 · Cited by 1,518
“According to Podsakoff and Organ (1986) and Doty and Glick (1998), if all the variables load on one factor or any factor explains most of the variance, common method bias exists.”
Background
The job Demands-resources model: a three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement
Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., & Ahola, K. (2008) · Work & Stress · doi:10.1080/02678370802379432 · Cited by 1,432
“On the positive side, our study was based on a longitudinal design, which diminishes the risks for common method bias (Doty & Glick, 1998).”
Background
EMPLOYEE ATTRIBUTIONS OF THE “WHY” OF HR PRACTICES: THEIR EFFECTS ON EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS, AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
NISHII, L. H., LEPAK, D. P., & SCHNEIDER, B. (2008) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00121.x · Cited by 1,410
“Third, recent literature suggests that common method variance is not as prevalent as researchers once assumed (e.g., Crampton & Wagner, 1994; Lindell & Whitney, 2001; Spector, 1987; 1994), and is very seldom a severe enough issue to invalidate research findings (e.g., Doty & Glick, 1998).”
Background
The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.246 · Cited by 1,384
“Although researchers have shown that common method bias is rarely strong enough to invalidate research findings (e.g., Doty & Glick, 1998), replications and extensions of our findings using experimental and longitudinal designs are needed.”
Background
Testing and Controlling for Common Method Variance: A Review of Available Methods
Tehseen, S., Ramayah, T., & Sajilan, S. (2017) · Journal of Management Sciences · doi:10.20547/jms.2014.1704202 · Cited by 1,380
“Although a number of organizational studies have debated on the serious challenges of CMV that may arise due to various factors such as common method and items’ characteristics (Doty & Glick, 1998).”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Cross-Sectional versus longitudinal survey research: concepts, findings, and guidelines
Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A. J., Ganesan, S., & Moorman, C. (2008) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.45.3.261 · Cited by 1,305
The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being.
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2013) · Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0032141 · Cited by 1,027
“However, the repeated measurements over time may have diminished the possibility for common method bias in this study (Doty & Glick, 1998).”
Method
How Important are Job Attitudes? Meta-Analytic Comparisons of Integrative Behavioral Outcomes and Time Sequences
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.20786077 · Cited by 1,245
“We note again that these results are not biased by percept-percept inflation (Doty & Glick, 1998; Harrison & McLaughlin,”
Background
Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being.
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138 · Cited by 1,794
Interorganizational Routines and Performance in Strategic Alliances
Zollo, M., Reuer, J. J., & Singh, H. (2002) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.13.6.701.503 · Cited by 1,190
The Contribution of Women on Boards of Directors: Going beyond the Surface
Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2010) · Corporate Governance An International Review · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8683.2010.00784.x · Cited by 1,178
“In order to assess the possible influence of common method bias (Doty & Glick, 1998), we used the Harman’s one factor test.”
Method
CEO Hubris and Firm Risk Taking in China: The Moderating Role of Managerial Discretion
Li, J., & Tang, Y. (2010) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2010.48036912 · Cited by 1,109
“Such information tends to be concrete and specific, so the decreased complexity of the judgments called for made the data less susceptible to common method bias (Doty & Glick, 1998).”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
A competence‐based and multidimensional operationalization and measurement of employability
der Heijde, C. M. V., & HEIJDEN, B. I. J. M. V. D. (2006) · Human Resource Management · doi:10.1002/hrm.20119 · Cited by 1,105
“Supervisor ratings are used here to prevent common method bias (Doty & Glick, 1998).”
Method
Marketing survey research best practices: evidence and recommendations from a review of JAMS articles
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
“Other studies have determined that CMV accounts for as much as a third of total variance across study contexts (e.g., Cote and Buckley 1987; Doty and Glick 1998; Lance et al. 2010; Ostroff et al. 2002).”
Background
The Convergent Validity of Two Burnout Instruments
Demerouti, E., Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Vardakou, I., & Κάντας, Α. (2003) · European Journal of Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1027//1015-5759.19.1.12 · Cited by 1,066
Inter‐organizational communication as a relational competency: Antecedents and performance outcomes in collaborative buyer–supplier relationships
Paulraj, A., Lado, A. A., & Chen, I. J. (2007) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.04.001 · Cited by 1,070
“According to this test, if common method bias exists, (1) a single factor will emerge from a factor analysis of all survey items (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986), or (2) one general factor accounting for most of the common variance existing in the data will emerge (Doty and Glick, 1998).”
The dark side of buyer–supplier relationships: A social capital perspective⋆
Villena, V. H., Revilla, E., & Choi, T. Y. (2011) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.09.001 · Cited by 1,018
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
“There are also substantial reviews of this phenomenon particularly within the psychological sciences (Antonakis, 2017; Doty and Glick, 1998; Fuller et al., 2016; Podsakoff et al., 2012; Spector, 2006; Spector and Brannick, 2009).”
Background
Burnout and work engagement: A thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs.
Demerouti, E., Mostert, K., & Bakker, A. B. (2010) · Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0019408 · Cited by 1,018
“…worded items (Price & Mueller, 1986) because they can lead to artificial factor solutions in which positively and negatively worded items are likely to cluster (Demerouti & Nachreiner, 1996; cf. Doty & Glick, 1998) or may show artificial relationships with other constructs (Lee & Ashforth, 1990).”
Encouraging information security behaviors in organizations: Role of penalties, pressures and perceived effectiveness
Herath, T. C., & Rao, H. R. (2009) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2009.02.005 · Cited by 921
“Although, the issue regarding ‘does the common method variance really bias the results?’ has been debated [23], we conducted the Harman’s single factor test to investigate common method bias [51].”
Method
Understanding Responses to Supply Chain Disruptions: Insights from Information Processing and Resource Dependence Perspectives
Bode, C., Wagner, S. M., Petersen, K. J., & Ellram, L. M. (2011) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2011.64870145 · Cited by 900
The persistence of knowledge‐based advantage: an empirical test for product performance and technological knowledge
McEvily, S. K., & Chakravarthy, B. (2002) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.223 · Cited by 851
Measuring entrepreneurial passion: Conceptual foundations and scale validation
Cardon, M. S., Grégoire, D. A., Stevens, C. E., & Patel, P. C. (2012) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.03.003 · Cited by 881
“…tested an un-constrained model to assess the magnitude of a possible methods effect: results revealed that on average, the methods factor explained 10.6% of item variance and 14.1% of construct reliability — values that are substantially lower than the 32% value documented by Doty and Glick (1998).”
MethodInfluential
Common Method Bias in Public Management Studies
Jakobsen, M., & Jensen, R. (2015) · International Public Management Journal · doi:10.1080/10967494.2014.997906 · Cited by 723
“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).”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Positive gain spirals at work: From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness
Hakanen, J. J., Perhoniemi, R., & Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008) · Journal of Vocational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.01.003 · Cited by 812
“The longitudinal design of our study for its part diminishes the risk for the common method bias (Doty & Glick, 1998).”
Achieving Marketing Objectives through Social Sponsorships
Simmons, C. J., & Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2006) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.70.4.154 · Cited by 795
Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance through the lens of organizational theories: An empirical study
Sila, I. (2006) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2006.02.003 · Cited by 788
“As a result, the accuracy of population parameter estimates could be improved (Doty and Glick, 1998).”
Background
Organizational antecedents of second‐order competences
Danneels, E. (2008) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.684 · Cited by 753
Organizational culture and performance measurement systems
Henri, J.-F. (2006) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2004.10.003 · Cited by 700
Academic procrastination of undergraduates: low self-efficacy to self-regulate predicts higher levels of procrastination.
Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., & Rajani, S. (2008) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.07.001 · Cited by 728
The Illusion of Statistical Control
Carlson, K. D., & Wu, J. (2011) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428111428817 · Cited by 676
“…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).”
Background
Daily transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R. (2014) · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1111/joop.12041 · Cited by 668
Organizational climate for innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of innovative work behavior
Shanker, R., Bhanugopan, R., HEIJDEN, B. I. J. M. V. D., & Farrell, M. (2017) · Journal of Vocational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2017.02.004 · Cited by 710
“Doty and Glick (1998) assert that validated scales are less sensitive to CMV.”
Background
The impact of legitimacy pressure and corporate profitability on green innovation: Evidence from China top 100
Li, D., Zheng, M., Cao, C., Chen, X., Ren, S., & Huang, M. (2016) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.123 · Cited by 682
Do burnout and work engagement predict depressive symptoms and life satisfaction? A three-wave seven-year prospective study
Hakanen, J. J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2012) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2012.02.043 · Cited by 883
“However, the longitudinal full panel design which controls for baseline levels of the study variables diminishes the risk for problems related to commonmethod variance (Doty and Glick, 1998).”
Background
Core Self-Evaluations
Chang, C.-H. D., Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A. (2011) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206311419661 · Cited by 708
“It has been estimated that up to 25% of the variance in observed relationships may be attributable to CMV (Buckley, Cote, & Comstock, 1990; Doty & Glick, 1998; Williams, Cote, & Buckley, 1989).”
Background
Resource Configuration in Family Firms: Linking Resources, Strategic Planning and Technological Opportunities to Performance
Eddleston, K. A., Kellermanns, F. W., & Sarathy, R. (2007) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00717.x · Cited by 631
Perceptual measures of performance: fact or fiction?
Ketokivi, M. A., & Schroeder, R. G. (2004) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2002.07.001 · Cited by 607
Corporate Entrepreneurship in Family Firms: A Family Perspective
Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. A. (2006) · Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00153.x · Cited by 596
The effect of management commitment to service quality on employees’ affective and performance outcomes
Babakus, E., Yavas, U., Karatepe, O. M., & Avcı, T. (2003) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1177/0092070303031003005 · Cited by 660
More Than an Answer: Information Relationships for Actionable Knowledge
Cross, R., & Sproull, L. S. (2004) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0075 · Cited by 567
Recent Advances in Causal Modeling Methods for Organizational and Management Research
Williams, L. J., Edwards, J. R., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2003) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1016/s0149-2063(03)00084-9 · Cited by 539
How motivation, opportunity, and ability drive knowledge sharing: The constraining‐factor model
Siemsen, E., Roth, A. V., & Balasubramanian, S. (2007) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.09.001 · Cited by 556
Assessing the impact of common method variance on higher order multidimensional constructs.
Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Djurdjevic, E. (2010) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0021504 · Cited by 568
Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational change
Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.342 · Cited by 522
“Goldfarb (1991) asserts that cynicism can undermine leaders and institutions and the practices they support.”
Background
Addressing Common Method Variance: Guidelines for Survey Research on Information Technology, Operations, and Supply Chain Management
Craighead, C. W., Ketchen, D. J., Wowak, K. D., & Hult, G. T. M. (2011) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2011.2136437 · Cited by 526
“Because CMV poses a significant threat to a study’s conclusions [17], [21], [66], we hope that authors and reviewers more fully address CMV in future research by bearing in mind the strategies summarized in Tables II and III when designing and evaluating research.”
Background
Leader–member exchange, feelings of energy, and involvement in creative work
ATWATER, L. E., & Carmeli, A. (2009) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.07.009 · Cited by 535
Authentic leadership, performance, and job satisfaction: the mediating role of empowerment.
Wong, C., & Laschinger, H. K. S. (2013) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06089.x · Cited by 599
“As the study used only self-report measures, common method variance cannot be ruled out; however, Doty and Glick (1998) documented that common method variance is rarely strong enough to invalidate findings.”
Method
How rude! Emotional labor as a mediator between customer incivility and employee outcomes.
Sliter, M. T., Jex, S. M., Wolford, K., & McInnerney, J. (2010) · Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0020723 · Cited by 537
“As always, the common method bias should be taken into account, as only self-report measures were used for emotional labor, emotional exhaustion, and customer incivility (Doty & Glick, 1998).”
Method
A model of involvement in work-related learning and development activity: the effects of individual, situational, motivational, and age variables.
Maurer, T. J., Weiss, E. M., & Barbeite, F. G. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.707 · Cited by 553
Estimating the Effect of Common Method VARIANCE: The Method–Method Pair Technique with an Illustration from TAM Research1
Sharma, R., Yetton, P., & Crawford, J. (2009) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/20650305 · Cited by 496
“While the multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) technique is generally accepted as the technique of choice to estimate the effect of CMV (Doty and Glick 1998; Podsakoff et al. 2003), social science research, including IS research, typically employs mono-method measurement, for which MTMM based techniques are not applicable.”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology.
Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2006) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/11383-000 · Cited by 497
The Role of Cognitive Style and Risk Preference on Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Intentions
Barbosa, S. D., Gerhardt, M. W., & Kickul, J. (2007) · Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies · doi:10.1177/10717919070130041001 · Cited by 499
“Common method variance is a methodological issue that affects many studies in social sciences and generates great debate (e.g., Doty & Glick, 1998; Spector, 2006).”
Innovativeness in family firms: a family influence perspective
Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., Sarathy, R., & Murphy, F. (2010) · Small Business Economics · doi:10.1007/s11187-010-9268-5 · Cited by 459
“not significantly affect the results (Doty and Glick 1998; Spector and Brannick 1995).”
Method
An Improved Measure of Ethical Leadership
YUKL, G. A., Mahsud, R., Hassan, S., & Prussia, G. E. (2011) · Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies · doi:10.1177/1548051811429352 · Cited by 549
Moderating Role of Follower Characteristics With Transformational Leadership and Follower Work Engagement
Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/1059601108331242 · Cited by 497
“Although researchers have shown that common method bias is rarely strong enough to invalidate research findings (e.g., Doty & Glick, 1998), future research will no doubt benefit from collecting ratings of leadership, follower characteristics, and work engagement from different sources over…”
Background
Job demands–resources, burnout and intention to leave the nursing profession: A questionnaire survey
Jourdain, G., & Chênevert, D. (2010) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.11.007 · Cited by 464
Testing How Management Matters in an Era of Government by Performance Management
Moynihan, D. P. (2004) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/mui016 · Cited by 428
Subjective Organizational Performance and Measurement Error: Common Source Bias and Spurious Relationships
Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. (2012) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/mus057 · Cited by 425
“TAKS scores are highly specific and widely disseminated; managerial perceptions of them should generate the maximum level of congruence with the objective performance data (see Doty and Glick 1998).”
Background
We Know the Yin—But Where Is the Yang? Toward a Balanced Approach on Common Source Bias in Public Administration Scholarship
George, B., & Pandey, S. K. (2017) · Review of Public Personnel Administration · doi:10.1177/0734371x17698189 · Cited by 424
“In addition, from a conceptual perspective, most studies seem to utilize similar definitions of CMV—indicating issues arising when variables are measured using the same method/source, typically a survey (e.g., Avolio, Yammarino, & Bass, 1991; Doty & Glick, 1998; Lindell & Whitney, 2001; Pace, 2010).”
Method
Authentic leadership and nurses' voice behaviour and perceptions of care quality
Wong, C. A., Laschinger, H. K. S., & Cummings, G. G. (2010) · Journal of Nursing Management · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01113.x · Cited by 430
Assessing Common Method Bias: Problems with the ULMC Technique1
Chin, W. W., Thatcher, J. B., & Wright, R. T. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41703491 · Cited by 505
Relaxing moral reasoning to win: How organizational identification relates to unethical pro-organizational behavior.
Chen, M., Chen, C. C., & Sheldon, O. J. (2016) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000111 · Cited by 439
“The temporal separation of 4 weeks was intended to reduce common method variance (Doty & Glick, 1998) by reducing biases in participants’ retrieval and reporting of responses (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).”
Method
Measurement and Meaning in Information Systems and Organizational Research: Methodological and Philosophical Foundations1
Bagozzi, R. P. (2011) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/23044044 · Cited by 402
“…and significant common method variance is, with some claiming that such bias is often low (e.g., Malhotra et al. 2006; Spector 1987) and others concluding that the bias may be substantial (e.g., Doty and Glick 1998; Podsakoff et al. 2003a; Sharma et al. 2009; Williams et al. 1989), there is rea-12”
Background
Women directors' contribution to board decision‐making and strategic involvement: The role of equality perception
Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2010) · European Management Review · doi:10.1057/emr.2009.27 · Cited by 400
“In order to deal with potential common method bias (Doty and Glick, 1998), we applied a number of procedural remedies recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003) in the instrument development and data collection phase.”
Method
Success factors of knowledge management in temporary organizations
Lindner, F., & Wald, A. E. (2010) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.09.003 · Cited by 429
Marketing capabilities: Antecedents and implications for B2B SME performance
Merrilees, B., Rundle-Thiele, S. R., & Lye, A. R. (2010) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.08.005 · Cited by 396
The role of relationships in understanding telecommuter satisfaction
Golden, T. D. (2006) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.369 · Cited by 405
Missing link in the service profit chain: A meta-analytic review of the antecedents, consequences, and moderators of service climate.
Hong, Y., Liao, H., Hu, J., & Jiang, K. (2013) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0031666 · Cited by 386
The Threat of Common Method Variance Bias to Theory Building
Reio, T. G. (2010) · Human Resource Development Review · doi:10.1177/1534484310380331 · Cited by 384
“I refer the reader to Campbell and Fiske (1959), Doty and Glick (1998), Podsakoff and Organ (1986), Podsakoff et al. (2003), and Spector (2006) for more in-depth discussion.”
Background
Corporate Ecological Responsiveness: Antecedent Effects of Institutional Pressure and Top Management Commitment and Their Impact on Organizational Performance
Colwell, S. R., & Joshi, A. W. (2011) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.732 · Cited by 400
The impact of supplier innovativeness, information sharing and strategic sourcing on improving supply chain agility: Global supply chain perspective
Kim, M., & Chai, S. (2017) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.02.007 · Cited by 367
“Following Podsakoff and Organ (1986) and Doty and Glick (1998), this study inspected all the eigenvalues through un-rotated factor analysis.”
Method
Daily Work Contexts and Resistance to Organisational Change: The Role of Leader–Member Exchange, Development Climate, and Change Process Characteristics
van Dam, K., Oreg, S., & Schyns, B. (2007) · Applied Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00311.x · Cited by 371
Method Effects, Measurement Error, and Substantive Conclusions
Lance, C. E., Dawson, B. L., Birkelbach, D. B., & Hoffman, B. J. (2010) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428109352528 · Cited by 368
“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.”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Finding Meaning through Volunteering: Why Do Employees Volunteer and What Does It Mean for Their Jobs?
Rodell, J. (2013) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2012.0611 · Cited by 355
“Including the coworker survey introduced source separation as a remedy for common method bias (Doty & Glick, 1998).”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
A Study of the Antecedents and Consequences of Psychological Ownership in Organizational Settings
Mayhew, M. G., Ashkanasy, N. M., Bramble, T., & Gardner, J. (2007) · The Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.3200/socp.147.5.477-500 · Cited by 357
Performance appraisal reactions: Measurement, modeling, and method bias.
Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (2000) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.708 · Cited by 353
Information Exposure, Opportunity Evaluation and Entrepreneurial Action: An Investigation of an Online User Community
Autio, E., Dahlander, L., & Frederiksen, L. (2013) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0328 · Cited by 355
“Our data came from (1) interviews, (2) a survey, and (3) a web log (message archive) of all interactions in the Propellerhead user community (henceforth, “the community”), thus helping us avoid common method bias (Doty & Glick, 1998).”
Method
Supplier–supplier relationships in buyer–supplier–supplier triads: Implications for supplier performance
Wu, Z., Choi, T. Y., & Rungtusanatham, M. J. (2009) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2009.09.002 · Cited by 341
Impact of artificial intelligence-driven big data analytics culture on agility and resilience in humanitarian supply chain: A practice-based view
Dubey, R., Bryde, D., Dwivedi, Y. K., Graham, G., & Foropon, C. R. H. (2022) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108618 · Cited by 403
“Some of these sources are from overly complex or abstract questions (Doty and Glick, 1998).”
Background
Leader-member exchange, work engagement, and job performance
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & van den Heuvel, M. (2015) · Journal of Managerial Psychology · doi:10.1108/jmp-03-2013-0088 · Cited by 437
The Safety of Objects: Materialism, Existential Insecurity, and Brand Connection
Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J. E., & Wong, N. (2009) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/595718 · Cited by 441
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
Dormant Ties: The Value Of Reconnecting
Levin, D. Z., Walter, J., & Murnighan, J. K. (2011) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0576 · Cited by 326
“In addition, when we used Doty and Glick’s (1998) corrective test to reduce the strength of our findings, the significant effects in our regression analyses in Table 2 remained either fully or marginally significant.”

Authors: Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H.
Affiliations: Syracuse University (US)
Arizona State University (US)
ORCID: Doty, D. Harold
Venue: Organizational Research Methods
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Published: 1998-10
Volume: 1
Issue: 4
Pages: 374-406
ISSN: 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
1552-7425
DOI: 10.1177/109442819814002
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
Licence: journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations: Organizational Research Methods (publishedVersion)
Topics: Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › 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

Common Methods Bias: Does Common Methods Variance Really Bias Results?

Abstract

Overview

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Claims other papers make about this one

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks