Common-method variance: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Ex-post remedies: this is not about CFA, but about the CFA marker technique |
m →Cite journal |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In [[applied statistics]], (e.g., applied to the [[social science]]s and [[psychometrics]]), '''common-method variance''' (CMV) is the spurious "variance that is attributable to the [[measurement]] method rather than to the [[construct (philosophy of science)|constructs]] the measures represent"<ref name="podsakoff2003">Podsakoff |
In [[applied statistics]], (e.g., applied to the [[social science]]s and [[psychometrics]]), '''common-method variance''' (CMV) is the spurious "variance that is attributable to the [[measurement]] method rather than to the [[construct (philosophy of science)|constructs]] the measures represent"<ref name="podsakoff2003">{{cite journal |last1=Podsakoff |first1=P.M. |last2=MacKenzie |first2=S.B. |last3=Lee |first3=J.-Y. |last4=Podsakoff |first4=N.P. |title=Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies |journal=Journal of Applied Psychology |volume=88 |issue=5 |pages=879–903 |date=October 2003 |doi=10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 |url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/jxb14/M554/articles/Podsakoffetal2003.pdf |format=PDF |pmid=14516251}}</ref> or equivalently as "systematic error variance shared among variables measured with and introduced as a function of the same method and/or source".<ref name="richardson2009">{{cite journal |last1=Richardson |first1=H.A. |last2=Simmering |first2=M.J. |last3=Sturman |first3=M.C. |title=A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance |journal=Organizational Research Methods |volume=12 |issue=4 |pages=762–800 |date=October 2009 |doi=10.1177/1094428109332834 |url=http://orm.sagepub.com/content/12/4/762.short}}</ref> Studies affected by CMV or '''common-method bias''' suffer from false correlations and run the risk of reporting incorrect research results.<ref name="podsakoff2003"/> |
||
<!-- ==Sources== c.f. podsakoff2003 --> |
<!-- ==Sources== c.f. podsakoff2003 --> |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
===Ex-ante remedies=== |
===Ex-ante remedies=== |
||
Several [[ex-ante]] remedies exist that help to avoid or minimize possible common-method variance. Important remedies have been collected by Chang et al. (2010).<ref name="chang2010">Chang |
Several [[ex-ante]] remedies exist that help to avoid or minimize possible common-method variance. Important remedies have been collected by Chang et al. (2010).<ref name="chang2010">{{cite journal |last1=Chang |first1=S.-J. |last2=van Witteloostuijn |first2=A. |last3=Eden |first3=L. |title=Common method variance in international business research |journal=Journal of International Business Studies |volume=41 |pages=178–184 |year=2010 |doi=10.1057/jibs.2009.88 |url=http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jibs/journal/v41/n2/abs/jibs200988a.html}}</ref> |
||
===Ex-post remedies=== |
===Ex-post remedies=== |
||
Using simulated data sets, Richardson et al. (2009) investigate three [[ex-post]] techniques to test for common-method variance: the correlational marker technique, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) marker technique, and the unmeasured latent method construct (ULMC) technique. Only the CFA marker technique turns out to provide some value.<ref name="richardson2009"/> A comprehensive example of this technique has been demonstrated by Williams et al. (2010).<ref name="williams2010">Williams |
Using simulated data sets, Richardson et al. (2009) investigate three [[ex-post]] techniques to test for common-method variance: the correlational marker technique, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) marker technique, and the unmeasured latent method construct (ULMC) technique. Only the CFA marker technique turns out to provide some value.<ref name="richardson2009"/> A comprehensive example of this technique has been demonstrated by Williams et al. (2010).<ref name="williams2010">{{cite journal |last1=Williams |last1=L.J. |last2=Hartman |last2=N. |last3=Cavazotte |last3=F. |title=Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique |journal=Organizational Research Methods |volume=13 |issue=3 |pages=477–514 |date=July 2010 |doi=10.1177/1094428110366036 |url=http://orm.sagepub.com/content/13/3/477.short}}</ref> |
||
==References== |
==References== |
||
Revision as of 14:14, 26 September 2012
In applied statistics, (e.g., applied to the social sciences and psychometrics), common-method variance (CMV) is the spurious "variance that is attributable to the measurement method rather than to the constructs the measures represent"[1] or equivalently as "systematic error variance shared among variables measured with and introduced as a function of the same method and/or source".[2] Studies affected by CMV or common-method bias suffer from false correlations and run the risk of reporting incorrect research results.[1]
Remedies
Ex-ante remedies
Several ex-ante remedies exist that help to avoid or minimize possible common-method variance. Important remedies have been collected by Chang et al. (2010).[3]
Ex-post remedies
Using simulated data sets, Richardson et al. (2009) investigate three ex-post techniques to test for common-method variance: the correlational marker technique, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) marker technique, and the unmeasured latent method construct (ULMC) technique. Only the CFA marker technique turns out to provide some value.[2] A comprehensive example of this technique has been demonstrated by Williams et al. (2010).[4]
References
- ^ a b Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. (October 2003). "Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies" (PDF). Journal of Applied Psychology. 88 (5): 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879. PMID 14516251.
- ^ a b Richardson, H.A.; Simmering, M.J.; Sturman, M.C. (October 2009). "A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance". Organizational Research Methods. 12 (4): 762–800. doi:10.1177/1094428109332834.
- ^ Chang, S.-J.; van Witteloostuijn, A.; Eden, L. (2010). "Common method variance in international business research". Journal of International Business Studies. 41: 178–184. doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.88.
- ^ L.J.; N.; F. (July 2010). "Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique". Organizational Research Methods. 13 (3): 477–514. doi:10.1177/1094428110366036.
External links
 | This statistics-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |