2019
DOI: 10.1177/0312896219871976
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Common method bias in applied settings: The dilemma of researching in organizations

Abstract: Authors are experiencing increasing competition for their articles to be published. One way of ensuring their work is given the best chance of being published is to underpin their research with rigorous methods that are characterized by robustness, accuracy and reliability. A common factor that can stymie research rigour is common method bias. Our aim in this article is to outline the nature of, concerns about and examine reasons why researchers still conduct studies that are susceptible to common method bias.… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

5
375
0
8

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 605 publications
(388 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
5
375
0
8
Order By: Relevance
“…While we conducted a scenario case study to test our hypotheses, because contrary to an experiment it retains more realism of context and also yields excellent internal validity (Finch, 1987), most variables in our study were collected at the same time and from the same respondents. This approach means that part of our data is sensitive to common method bias (CMB), and the estimates of the relationships between the constructs can be biased because they are measured with the same method (Campbell and Fiske, 1959; Podsakoff and Organ, 1986; see also Jordan and Troth, 2019). Given this limit, Jordan and Troth (2019) provided procedural and statistical solutions for avoiding or managing CMB concerns.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…While we conducted a scenario case study to test our hypotheses, because contrary to an experiment it retains more realism of context and also yields excellent internal validity (Finch, 1987), most variables in our study were collected at the same time and from the same respondents. This approach means that part of our data is sensitive to common method bias (CMB), and the estimates of the relationships between the constructs can be biased because they are measured with the same method (Campbell and Fiske, 1959; Podsakoff and Organ, 1986; see also Jordan and Troth, 2019). Given this limit, Jordan and Troth (2019) provided procedural and statistical solutions for avoiding or managing CMB concerns.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This approach means that part of our data is sensitive to common method bias (CMB), and the estimates of the relationships between the constructs can be biased because they are measured with the same method (Campbell and Fiske, 1959; Podsakoff and Organ, 1986; see also Jordan and Troth, 2019). Given this limit, Jordan and Troth (2019) provided procedural and statistical solutions for avoiding or managing CMB concerns. Their view is that it is important to recognize that CMB as a method bias, and on this basis, the use of method and research design solutions prior to data collection in applied settings offers a higher quality solution.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the study, a factor analysis was carried out which demonstrated that there is no common factor loading on all measures used (Chang et al, 2020;Jordan & Troth, 2020;Podsakoff et al, 2003;Podsakoff & Organ, 1986;Vinzi et al, 2010). Subsequently, therefore, common method bias was considered not to be a problem with the study data set (Vinzi et al, 2010).…”
Section: Common Methods Variancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since the data has been collected from one source, a structured questionnaire, the shared attributes, i.e., common method bias, between the answers of different variables may affect the results of the relationships between these variables (Jordan and Troth, 2020). Accordingly, a common method bias has been checked according to the Harman's one factor approach (Podsakoff et al, 2003).…”
Section: Common Methods Biasmentioning
confidence: 99%