The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Testing and Controlling for Common Method Variance: A Review of Available Methods
Open accessAbstract
Several studies have debated over the prevalence of Common Method Variance (CMV) in organizational research. This paper highlights various procedural and statistical remedies to assess and control common method variance in any organizational study. It has been recognized that Common Method Variance (CMV) may significantly influence the research findings if it is not controlled properly through procedural and statistical remedies. However, researchers usually do not use all procedural remedies to remove potential impacts of CMV. Therefore, statistical remedies are strongly suggested to control and remove effects of CMV from data analysis. We have mentioned some common and effective statistical remedies
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
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
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
Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114 · Cited by 8,490
Assessing construct validity in organizational research
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393203 · Cited by 6,621
The Psychology of Survey Response
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511819322 · Cited by 4,734
Negative 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
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148781 · Cited by 3,921
Measurement and Control of Response Bias
Paulhus, D. L. (1991) · Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-590241-0.50006-x · Cited by 3,598
Cited by
Lv, X., Zhang, R., Su, Y., & Yang, Y. (2022) · Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing · doi:10.1080/10548408.2022.2052227 · Cited by 180
Procentese, F., Gatti, F., & Di Napoli, I. (2019) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph16245006 · Cited by 116
Ampadu, S., Jiang, Y., Debrah, E., Antwi, C. O., Amankwa, E., Gyamfi, S. A., & Amoako, R. (2022) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102789 · Cited by 92
Ahmed, S., & Aziz, N. A. (2025) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2400395 · Cited by 67
Ramzan, S., Liu, C., Xu, Y., Munir, H., & Gupta, B. (2020) · Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal · doi:10.1108/meq-02-2020-0028 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- Tehseen, S., Ramayah, T., & Sajilan, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Sciences
- Publisher
- Iqra University
- Published
- 2017-03
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 142-168
- ISSN
- 2313-0113 (ISSN-L)
- 2413-8657
- OpenAlex
- W2729551988
- Cited by
- 1,316
- References
- 43
- FWCI
- 36.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Testing and Controlling for Common Method Variance: A Review of Available Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.20547/jms.2014.1704202
- The paper
- Tehseen, S., Ramayah, T., & Sajilan, S. (2017). Testing and Controlling for Common Method Variance: A Review of Available Methods. Journal of Management Sciences. https://doi.org/10.20547/jms.2014.1704202
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.
