Detecting Common Method Bias: Performance of the Harman's Single-Factor Test

IF 2.8 4区 管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Data Base for Advances in Information Systems Pub Date : 2019-05-06 DOI:10.1145/3330472.3330477
Miguel I. Aguirre-Urreta, Jiang Hu
{"title":"Detecting Common Method Bias: Performance of the Harman's Single-Factor Test","authors":"Miguel I. Aguirre-Urreta, Jiang Hu","doi":"10.1145/3330472.3330477","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Lack of careful consideration of common method effects in empirical research can lead to several negative consequences for the interpretation of research outcomes, such as biased estimates of the validity and reliability of the measures employed as well as bias in the estimates of the relationships between constructs of interest, which in turn can affect hypothesis testing. Taken together, these make it very difficult to make any interpretations of the results when those are affected by substantive common method effects. In the literature, there are several preventive, detective, and corrective techniques that can be employed to assuage concerns about the possibility of common method effects underlying observed results. Among these, the most popular has been Harman's Single-Factor Test. Though researchers have argued against its effectiveness in the past, the technique has continued to be very popular in the discipline. Moreover, there is a dearth of empirical evidence on the actual effectiveness of the technique, which we sought to remedy with this research. Our results, based on extensive Monte Carlo simulations, indicate that the approach shows limited effectiveness in detecting the presence of common method effects and may thus be providing a false sense of security to researchers. We therefore argue against the use of the technique moving forward and provide evidence to support our position.","PeriodicalId":46842,"journal":{"name":"Data Base for Advances in Information Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"172","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Data Base for Advances in Information Systems","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3330472.3330477","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 172

Abstract

Lack of careful consideration of common method effects in empirical research can lead to several negative consequences for the interpretation of research outcomes, such as biased estimates of the validity and reliability of the measures employed as well as bias in the estimates of the relationships between constructs of interest, which in turn can affect hypothesis testing. Taken together, these make it very difficult to make any interpretations of the results when those are affected by substantive common method effects. In the literature, there are several preventive, detective, and corrective techniques that can be employed to assuage concerns about the possibility of common method effects underlying observed results. Among these, the most popular has been Harman's Single-Factor Test. Though researchers have argued against its effectiveness in the past, the technique has continued to be very popular in the discipline. Moreover, there is a dearth of empirical evidence on the actual effectiveness of the technique, which we sought to remedy with this research. Our results, based on extensive Monte Carlo simulations, indicate that the approach shows limited effectiveness in detecting the presence of common method effects and may thus be providing a false sense of security to researchers. We therefore argue against the use of the technique moving forward and provide evidence to support our position.
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
共同方法偏差的检测:哈曼单因素检验的性能
在实证研究中缺乏对共同方法效应的仔细考虑可能会导致对研究结果的解释产生一些负面后果,例如对所采用措施的效度和可靠性的估计有偏差,以及对感兴趣的构念之间关系的估计有偏差,这反过来又会影响假设检验。综上所述,当这些结果受到实质性共同方法效应的影响时,很难对结果作出任何解释。在文献中,有几种预防、检测和纠正技术可以用来减轻对普通方法影响观察结果的可能性的担忧。其中,最受欢迎的是哈曼的单因素测试。尽管研究人员过去曾反对其有效性,但该技术在该学科中仍然非常受欢迎。此外,缺乏关于该技术实际有效性的经验证据,我们试图通过本研究弥补这一点。我们的结果,基于广泛的蒙特卡罗模拟,表明该方法在检测共同方法效应的存在方面显示出有限的有效性,因此可能为研究人员提供一种虚假的安全感。因此,我们反对使用这项技术,并提供证据来支持我们的立场。
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
Data Base for Advances in Information Systems
Data Base for Advances in Information Systems INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Four Decades of Chief Information Officer Research: A Literature Review and Research Agenda Based on Main Path Analysis The Role of Social Media Analytics in Providing Product Intelligence: A Qualitative Study A Design Theory for Certification Presentations Unpacking Human and AI Complementarity: Insights from Recent Works Let's Quit Together: Exploring Textual Factors Promoting Supportive Interactions in Online Cannabis Support Forums
×
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