The DOI matches its Crossref record; 75 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ADDRESSING COMMON METHOD BIAS, OPERATIONALIZATION, SAMPLING, AND DATA COLLECTION ISSUES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH: REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Abstract
When editing regular and special issues of numerous journals, we have observed several recurring shortcomings in the manuscripts, particularly in relation to methodology. Many of these manuscripts are often found lacking in providing critical methodological information or justifying the use of the selected methods, thus resulting in desk rejection at the preliminary stage or major revision in the review process. Although the theoretical and managerial aspects of manuscripts are essential to publication consideration, methodological flaws can be detrimental. It is therefore of no surprise that failures to address methodological concerns are some of the common reasons for a manuscript to be rejected from publication, even after going through several rounds of revision. The purpose of this editorial is to provide clear guidelines on effectively reporting the methodological section in a quantitative manuscript in the fields of business and social sciences. Specifically, we present a set of recommendations on implementing and reporting operationalization, instrument validation, sampling techniques, questionnaire administration, and common method bias. Researchers, whether students or academics, should consider these guidelines to ensure methodological rigor in their research projects.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“General Bias Method Collecting data on endogenous and exogenous variables from the same respondents at one time when filling out the questionnaire has the potential to cause bias, which is common in survey research (Memon et al., 2023).”
From The Mediating Role of Risk Perception in the Effect of Information Literacy on Students’ Disaster Preparedness (2026) · cites this paper as Memon et al., 2023
Citations
Cites
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800104 · Cited by 109,190
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1989.10488618 · Cited by 99,167
A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)
Leguina, A. (2015) · International Journal of Research & Method in Education · doi:10.1080/1743727x.2015.1005806 · Cited by 18,921
Cross validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions
Stone, M. (1974) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1974.tb00994.x · Cited by 10,881
Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM: A Full Collinearity Assessment Approach
Kock, N. (2015) · International Journal of e-Collaboration · doi:10.4018/ijec.2015100101 · Cited by 10,215
Kilzer, E., & Skinner, B. F. (1953) · The American Catholic Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/3707860 · Cited by 8,940
Hanrahan, G. (2008) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781420067972-10 · Cited by 8,196
Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context
Hofstede, G. (2011) · Online Readings in Psychology and Culture · doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1014 · Cited by 7,250
Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669 · Cited by 6,233
Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3 · Cited by 5,758
Cited by
Surjandy, Angellie, & Kangliesky, E. T. (2024) · 2024 2nd International Conference on Software Engineering and Information Technology (ICoSEIT) · doi:10.1109/icoseit60086.2024.10497471 · Cited by 1
Andini, N. F., Putra, R. W., & Aldebaran, M. F. (2026) · JURNAL GEOGRAFI · doi:10.24114/jg.v18i1.72188
Metadata
- Authors
- Memon, M. A., Thurasamy, R., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Chuah, F., & Cham, T. H.
- ORCID
- Memon, Mumtaz Ali
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling
- Publisher
- Sarawak Research Society
- Published
- 2023-05-31
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1-14
- ISSN
- 2590-4221
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 75
- Language
- en
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: ADDRESSING COMMON METHOD BIAS, OPERATIONALIZATION, SAMPLING, AND DATA COLLECTION ISSUES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH: REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.47263/jasem.7(2)01
- The paper
- Memon, M. A., Thurasamy, R., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Chuah, F., & Cham, T. H. (2023). ADDRESSING COMMON METHOD BIAS, OPERATIONALIZATION, SAMPLING, AND DATA COLLECTION ISSUES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH: REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling. https://doi.org/10.47263/jasem.7(2)01
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.