Advanced Business Research Method Intructor : Prof. Feng-Hui Huang

1. Advanced Business Research Method Intructor : Prof. Feng-Hui Huang Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended RemediesPhilip M. Podsakoff, Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, Nathan P. PodsakoffJournal of Applied Psychology, 2003, Vol 88, No.5, 879-903 Agung D. Buchdadi DA21G201

2. Contents • Introduction • Extent of Bias Caused by Common Method Variance • Potential Sources of Common Method Biases • Processes Through Which Method Biases Influence Respondent Behavior • Techniques for Controlling Common Method Biases • Comparison of Statistical Remedies for Common Method Biases • Recommendations for Controlling Method Biases in Research Settings • Some Additional Considerations • Conclusions

3. Introduction • Interest in the problem of method biases has a long history in the behavioral sciences. • The purpose of this article is to examine the extent to which method biases influencebehavioral research results, identify potential sources of method biases, discuss the cognitive processesthrough which method biases influence responses to measures, evaluate the many different proceduraland statistical techniques that can be used to control method biases, and provide recommendations forhow to select appropriate procedural and statistical remedies for different types of research settings.

4. Extent of Bias Caused by Common Method Variance • Cote and Buckley (1987) found that approximatelyone quarter (26.3%) of the variance in a typical research measuremight be due to systematic sources of measurement error likecommon method biases. • However, they also found that the amountof variance attributable to method biases varied considerably bydiscipline and by the type of construct being investigated. • Forexample, Cote and Buckley (1987) found that, on average, methodvariance was lowest in the field of marketing (15.8%) and highestin the field of education (30.5%). • They also found that typical jobperformance measures contained an average of 22.5% methodvariance, whereas attitude measures contain an average of 40.7%. • It is also noted that the CMV on controlled research is lower than CMV on uncontrolled research

5. Extent of Bias Caused by Common Method Variance • Cote and Buckley (1987) indicate that CMV can inflate or deflate the relationship between construct, as shown in table 1

6. Potential Sources of Common Method Biases • Method effects produced by a common source or rater

7. Potential Sources of Common Method Biases • Method effect produced by items context

8. Potential Sources of Common Method Biases • Method effect produced by measurement context

9. Processes Through Which Method Biases Influence Respondent Behavior

10. Techniques for Controlling Common Method Biases • Procedural Remedies • Obtain measures of the predictor and criterion variables from different sources • Temporal, proximal, psychological, or methodological separation of measurement • Reducing biases in retrieval stage • Reducing respondent ability to re”use” previous answer • Reducing biases in the report stage • Protecting respondent anonymity and reducing evaluation apprehension

11. Techniques for Controlling Common Method Biases • Counterbalancing question order • Improving scale items • Define ambiguous or unfamiliar terms • Avoid vague concepts and provide examples when such concepts must be used; • Keepquestions simple, specific, and concise; • Avoid double-barreledquestions; • Decompose questions relating to more than onepossibility into simpler, more focused questions; • Avoid complicated syntax. • eliminate item social desirability and demand characteristics

12. Techniques for Controlling Common Method Biases • Statistical Remedies • Herman’s single-factor test

13. Techniques for Controlling Common Method Biases • Statistical Remedies 2. Partial corellation procedure

14. Techniques for Controlling Common Method Biases • Statistical Remedies 3. Controlling for the effect of a directly measured latent method factor

15. Techniques for Controlling Common Method Biases Statistical remedies 4. Controlling for the effects of an unmeasured latent method factor

16. Techniques for Controlling Common Method Biases 5. Multiple method factors a. CFA of MTMM model

17. Techniques for Controlling Common Method Biases 5. Multiple method factors b. Correlated uniqueness model

18. Techniques for Controlling Common Method Biases 5. Multiple method factors c. Direct product model

19. Comparison of Statistical Remedies for Common Method Biases

20. Comparison of Statistical Remedies for Common Method Biases

21. Recommendations for Controlling Method Biases in Research Settings

22. Some Additional Considerations • Controlling for Method Variance in Experimental Research Examining Mediated Effects Method biases contribute to observed relationship between the mediator and the dependent measure in this research as it is usually obtained from the same object at the same point Using single-common-method-factor approach

23. Some Additional Considerations • Controlling for Method Variance in Studies Using Formative Constructs Since in formative construct the characteristic of indicators are different from those in reflective construct, To controll method bias, the researcher must be more careful in designing the research and the procedural controlls, then, are the best way in this matters.

24. Conclusions • This paper provides the process to controll method bias in conducting research in behavior. The process starts by assesing the research setting toidentify the potential sources of bias and then implementing both proceduraland statistical methods of control.