Common-method variance
In applied statistics, (e.g. applied to the social sciences and psychometrics), common-method variance is a specific type of variance that may cause errors in analyzing statistical data. It has been defined by Podsakoff et al. (2003) as "variance that is attributable to the measurement method rather than to the constructs the measures represent"[1] or, more recently, by Richardson et al. (2009) as "systematic error variance shared among variables measured with and introduced as a function of the same method and/or source"[2].
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]
External links
References
- ^ Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88, 879–903.
- ^ a b Richardson, H.A., Simmering, M.J., Sturman, M.C., 2009. A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods 12, 762–800.
- ^ Chang, S.-J., van Witteloostuijn, A., Eden, L., 2010. Common method variance in international business research. J Int Bus Stud 41, 178–184.
- ^ Williams, L.J., Hartman, N., Cavazotte, F., 2010. Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organizational Research Methods 13, 477–514.