Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Common Methods Bias: Does Common Methods Variance Really Bias Results?

Common Methods Bias: Does Common Methods Variance Really Bias Results? Methods variance and its effects are at the center of a debate in organizational science. Most of the debate, however, is focused on the prevalence of common methods variance and ignores common methods bias, or the divergence between observed and true relationships among constructs. This article assesses the level of common methods bias in all multitrait-multimethod correlation matrices published over a 12-year period in a set of six social science journals using a combination of structural equation modeling and meta-analysis. The results indicate that only 46% of the variation in measures is attributable to the constructs, that 32% of the observed variation in measures is attributable to common methods variance, and that common methods variance results in a 26% bias in the observed relationships among constructs. This level of bias is cause for concern but does not invalidate many research findings. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Organizational Research Methods SAGE

Common Methods Bias: Does Common Methods Variance Really Bias Results?

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/common-methods-bias-does-common-methods-variance-really-bias-results-Ko83uXnWxn

References (71)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © by SAGE Publications
ISSN
1094-4281
eISSN
1552-7425
DOI
10.1177/109442819814002
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Methods variance and its effects are at the center of a debate in organizational science. Most of the debate, however, is focused on the prevalence of common methods variance and ignores common methods bias, or the divergence between observed and true relationships among constructs. This article assesses the level of common methods bias in all multitrait-multimethod correlation matrices published over a 12-year period in a set of six social science journals using a combination of structural equation modeling and meta-analysis. The results indicate that only 46% of the variation in measures is attributable to the constructs, that 32% of the observed variation in measures is attributable to common methods variance, and that common methods variance results in a 26% bias in the observed relationships among constructs. This level of bias is cause for concern but does not invalidate many research findings.

Journal

Organizational Research MethodsSAGE

Published: Oct 1, 1998

There are no references for this article.