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" or equivalently as "systematic error variance shared among variables measured with and introduced as a function of the same method and/or source". Studies affected by CMV or common-method bias suffer from false correlations and run the risk of reporting incorrect research results.
Ex-ante 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. A comprehensive example of this technique has been demonstrated by Williams et al. (2010).
- 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.
- 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.
|This statistics-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.|