Cited by 10,215Psychometric Methodologies and TestingAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsBusiness Strategies and Management Research

Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM: A Full Collinearity Assessment Approach

Open access
Kock, Ned·2015·International Journal of e-Collaboration

Abstract

The author discusses common method bias in the context of structural equation modeling employing the partial least squares method (PLS-SEM). Two datasets were created through a Monte Carlo simulation to illustrate the discussion: one contaminated by common method bias, and the other not contaminated. A practical approach is presented for the identification of common method bias based on variance inflation factors generated via a full collinearity test. The author's discussion builds on an illustrative model in the field of e-collaboration, with outputs generated by the software WarpPLS. They demonstrate that the full collinearity test is successful in the identification of common method bias with a model that nevertheless passes standard convergent and discriminant validity assessment criteria based on a confirmation factor analysis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4018/ijec.2015100101

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • The LV method showed inner VIF values less than 3.3, indicating that the data is not infected by common method bias.

    “Following the LV method, we subjected all indicators to a single construct and rotated the process across all constructs, observing that the inner VIF values were less than 3.3, indicating that the data is not infected by CMB”
  • Collinearity is not a major concern in the research model.

    “Based on Kock [146], VIF value lower than 3.3 demonstrates that collinearity is not a major concern in the research model.”
  • Assessing CMV with VIF returned values under 3.3, and correlations between constructs below 0.9, suggesting findings were not impacted by CMV.

    “Moreover, assessing the Common Method Variance (CMV) with Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) returned values under 3.3 (Kock 2015;Kock and Lynn 2012), and correlations between constructs below 0.9 (Rasoolimanesh et al. 2021).This outcome suggests that the findings were not impacted by CMV.”
  • The results of the full collinearity test showed that the variance inflation factors were between 1.163 and 1.625, below the maximum threshold of 3.3, which suggested that common method bias was not a severe issue for this study.

    “The results of the full collinearity test showed that the variance inflation factors were between 1.163 and 1.625 (Table 2), below the maximum threshold of 3.3, which suggested that common method bias was not a severe issue for this study (Kock, 2015).”

    From Risk, Trust, and the Roles of Human Versus Virtual Influencers (2024) · cites this paper as Kock, 2015

  • To ensure robustness in the assessment for Study 1, two types of statistical assessments for common method bias were incorporated: Harman's single-factor test and the full collinearity test.

    “To ensure robustness in the assessment for Study 1, two types of statistical assessments for common method bias were incorporated: Harman's single-factor test (MacKenzie & Podsakoff, 2012) and the full collinearity test (Kock, 2015).”

    From Risk, Trust, and the Roles of Human Versus Virtual Influencers (2024) · cites this paper as Kock, 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kock, N.
Affiliations
Texas A&M International University (US)
Corresponding author
Kock, Ned
Venue
International Journal of e-Collaboration
Published
2015-10-01
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
1-10
ISSN
  • 1548-3673 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-3681
OpenAlex
W1204404493
Cited by
10,215
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 3334 · 2025: 2114 · 2024: 1493 · 2023: 1086 · 2022: 848 · 2021: 643 · 2020: 391 · 2019: 193 · 2018: 75 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 1
FWCI
47.03
Type
journal article
Language
ng
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • International Journal of e-Collaboration (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Statistical Methods and Models
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Business Strategies and Management Research
Keywords
common method bias, partial least squares structural equation modeling, variance inflation factor, e-collaboration, convergent validity, discriminant validity, Monte Carlo simulation

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