No abstract

No abstract

It has become widely accepted that correlations between variables measured with the same method, usually self-report surveys, are inflated due to the action of common method variance (CMV), despite a number of sources that suggest the problem is overstated. The author argues that the popular position suggesting CMV automatically affects variables measured with the same method is a distortion and oversimplification of the true state of affairs, reaching the status of urban legend. Empirical evidence is discussed casting doubt that the method itself produces systematic variance in observations that inflates correlations to any significant degree. It is suggested that the term common method variance be abandoned in favor of a focus on measurement bias that is the product of the interplay of constructs and methods by which they are assessed. A complex approach to dealing with potential biases involves their identification and control to rule them out as explanations for observed relationships using a variety of design strategies.

Despite the widespread use of self-report measures of both job-related Stressors and strains, relatively few carefully developed scales for which validity data exist are available. In this article, we discuss 3 job stressor scales (Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, and Quantitative Workload Inventory) and 1 job strain scale (Physical Symptoms Inventory). Using meta-analysis, we combined the results of 18 studies to provide estimates of relations between our scales and other variables. Data showed moderate convergent validity for the 3 job stressor scales, suggesting some objectivity to these self-reports. Norms for each scale are provided. The investigation of job-related stress involves studying the relationship between stressful aspects of jobs (normally termed stressors) and the reputed results of stressor exposure (normally termed strains). Although several diverse theoretical models of the process by which stressors impact employees exist (e.g., Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980; Jex, in press; Jex & Beehr, 1991; Kahn & Byosiere, 1992), most models propose that employees are exposed to stressful working conditions, these conditions are perceived, and finally employees exhibit strains, which can include behaviors (e.g., increased smoking), physical illness, and psychological distress. On the job stressor side, there have been only a limited number of scales developed, which has tended to focus the field on a relatively small number of potential job stressors, for example, role ambiguity and role conflict. Yet research clearly suggests an important role for other job stressors that have

No abstract