Four Research Designs and a Comprehensive Analysis Strategy for Investigating Common Method Variance with Self-Report Measures Using Latent Variables

By Lawrence J. Williams, Alyssa K. McGonagle. 2016

367 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computer Networks and Communications, Management Science and Operations Research, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/346426ef862157bfe138f48e7b4204a451e2aabc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Computer Networks and Communications

1. Peter Lucas Stöckli
2. Ashlea Troth
3. Peter J. Jordan
4. Klaus Jonas
5. H. Annen
6. Philippe Goldammer

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. Peter Lucas Stöckli
2. Ashlea Troth
3. Peter J. Jordan
4. Klaus Jonas
5. H. Annen
6. Philippe Goldammer

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

1. Ashlea Troth
2. Peter J. Jordan
3. Klaus Jonas
4. H. Annen
5. Neal M. Ashkanasy
6. Adam M. Grant
7. S. Cartwright
8. Constantinos Pappas

Citations in the corpus

• Careless responding in questionnaire measures: Detection, impact, and remedies (2020, background): “In the context of structural equation models (SEM), this idea might also be implemented by modeling a careless response style factor on which all the model relevant items are regressed (Huang et al., 2012; Williams & McGonagle, 2016).”
• Common method bias in applied settings: The dilemma of researching in organizations (2020, background): “This test specifies a latent construct with no uniquely observed indicators to represent the shared variance between a method and the substantive constructs (Fuller et al., 2016; Williams and McGonagle, 2016).”