Manipulating Common Method Variance via Experimental Conditions

Q3 Business, Management and Accounting Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Pub Date : 2022-02-24 DOI:10.34190/ejbrm.20.1.2196
Alison Wall, Marcia Simmering, Christie Fuller, Brian Waterwall
{"title":"Manipulating Common Method Variance via Experimental Conditions","authors":"Alison Wall, Marcia Simmering, Christie Fuller, Brian Waterwall","doi":"10.34190/ejbrm.20.1.2196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research data collected from single respondents may raise concerns regarding common method variance (CMV), which is believed to threaten the validity of findings. The primary concern is that CMV can inflate substantive relationships, such that they appear statistically significant when they are not. Thus, understanding the nature of CMV is critical, especially when one considers the popularity—and sometimes necessity—of using self-report data. Research examining CMV has found conflicting evidence about the impact of CMV. Researchers who believe CMV influences findings have proposed solutions to combat any real or perceived potential bias, including changing survey instructions and using marker variables, but few studies have examined the efficacy of these approaches. The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of these techniques and the nature of CMV using an experimental design. To conduct the experiment, multiple versions of a survey, which vary in their use of the remedial approaches, are utilized to collect data, which resulted in 1,069 usable responses. The experimental design was based on the faking literature and included instructions intended to induce or reduce the levels of CMV. Further, two different marker variables are used to determine the degree to which they create a psychological separation in substantive variables. Correlation analysis and measurement invariance are used to analyze the data. This study posits that, if CMV is a substantial concern for self-report data and these approaches are effective, then findings will differ in surveys that incorporate such approaches from surveys that do not. Results indicate few differences in experimental conditions, meaning that regardless of instructions or marker variable, substantive item correlations remained statistically similar. The results indicate this is likely due to the minimal impact of CMV, given that the proposed methods of correction did not significantly influence research findings. These findings have implications for researchers in that they do not support that CMV, or at least its proposed remedies, significantly alter findings. However, support for the null conclusions, in spite of appropriate statistical power, warrant future research examining the nature and impact of CMV.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34190/ejbrm.20.1.2196","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Research data collected from single respondents may raise concerns regarding common method variance (CMV), which is believed to threaten the validity of findings. The primary concern is that CMV can inflate substantive relationships, such that they appear statistically significant when they are not. Thus, understanding the nature of CMV is critical, especially when one considers the popularity—and sometimes necessity—of using self-report data. Research examining CMV has found conflicting evidence about the impact of CMV. Researchers who believe CMV influences findings have proposed solutions to combat any real or perceived potential bias, including changing survey instructions and using marker variables, but few studies have examined the efficacy of these approaches. The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of these techniques and the nature of CMV using an experimental design. To conduct the experiment, multiple versions of a survey, which vary in their use of the remedial approaches, are utilized to collect data, which resulted in 1,069 usable responses. The experimental design was based on the faking literature and included instructions intended to induce or reduce the levels of CMV. Further, two different marker variables are used to determine the degree to which they create a psychological separation in substantive variables. Correlation analysis and measurement invariance are used to analyze the data. This study posits that, if CMV is a substantial concern for self-report data and these approaches are effective, then findings will differ in surveys that incorporate such approaches from surveys that do not. Results indicate few differences in experimental conditions, meaning that regardless of instructions or marker variable, substantive item correlations remained statistically similar. The results indicate this is likely due to the minimal impact of CMV, given that the proposed methods of correction did not significantly influence research findings. These findings have implications for researchers in that they do not support that CMV, or at least its proposed remedies, significantly alter findings. However, support for the null conclusions, in spite of appropriate statistical power, warrant future research examining the nature and impact of CMV.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过实验条件操纵通用方法方差
从单个受访者收集的研究数据可能会引起对共同方法方差(CMV)的关注,这被认为会威胁到研究结果的有效性。主要的担忧是CMV可以夸大实质性的关系,使它们在统计上显着而实际上并不显着。因此,理解巨细胞病毒的本质是至关重要的,特别是当人们考虑到使用自我报告数据的流行(有时是必要的)时。关于巨细胞病毒影响的研究发现了相互矛盾的证据。相信巨细胞病毒会影响研究结果的研究人员提出了解决方案,以对抗任何实际或感知到的潜在偏见,包括改变调查指示和使用标记变量,但很少有研究检验这些方法的有效性。本研究的目的是通过实验设计来检验这些技术的影响和巨细胞病毒的性质。为了进行实验,使用了多种版本的调查,这些调查在使用补救方法方面有所不同,以收集数据,从而产生了1,069个可用的答复。实验设计以伪造文献为基础,并包括旨在诱导或降低CMV水平的说明。此外,使用两个不同的标记变量来确定它们在实质性变量中产生心理分离的程度。利用相关分析和测量不变性对数据进行分析。本研究假设,如果CMV是自我报告数据的重要关注点,并且这些方法是有效的,那么在采用这些方法的调查中,结果将与不采用这些方法的调查不同。结果表明实验条件的差异很小,这意味着无论说明或标记变量如何,实质性项目相关性在统计上保持相似。结果表明,这可能是由于CMV的影响最小,因为所提出的校正方法对研究结果没有显著影响。这些发现对研究人员有影响,因为他们不支持巨细胞病毒,或至少其提出的补救措施,显著改变研究结果。然而,尽管有适当的统计能力,但对无效结论的支持保证了未来研究CMV的性质和影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Business, Management and Accounting-Business and International Management
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods (EJBRM) provides perspectives on topics relevant to research methods applied in the field of business and management. Through its publication the journal contributes to the development of theory and practice. The journal accepts academically robust papers that contribute to the area of research methods applied in business and management research. Papers submitted to the journal are double-blind reviewed by members of the reviewer committee or other suitably qualified readers. The Editor reserves the right to reject papers that, in the view of the editorial board, are either of insufficient quality, or are not relevant enough to the subject area. The editor is happy to discuss contributions before submission. The journal publishes work in the categories described below. Research Papers: These may be qualitative or quantitative, empirical or theoretical in nature and can discuss completed research findings or work in progress. Case Studies: Case studies are welcomed illustrating business and management research methods in practise. View Points: View points are less academically rigorous articles usually in areas of controversy which will fuel some interesting debate. Conference Reports and Book Reviews: Anyone who attends a conference or reads a book that they feel contributes to the area of Business Research Methods is encouraged to submit a review for publication.
期刊最新文献
Unraveling Endogeneity: A Systematic Review of Methodologies in Digital Leadership and Remote Work Research Double Bias of Mistakes: Essence, Consequences, and Measurement Method Statistically Validating a Theory Represented by a Venn Diagram How Cognitive Biases Influence Problematic Research Methods Practices Using Mixed Methods to Understand Tax Compliance Behaviour
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1