Common Method Bias in Regression Models With Linear, Quadratic, and Interaction Effects

2,684 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

How (Not) to Solve the Problem: An Evaluation of Scholarly Responses to Common Source Bias (2015, background): “At the same time, given that the author includes many independent variables from the same survey, common source bias should be controlled for fairly well (Siemsen, Roth, and Oliveira 2010) if bias is constant across all questions, as Lindell and Whitney (2001) assume.”
Corporate social responsibility and employee engagement: The moderating role of CSR‐specific relative autonomy and individualism (2018, background): “Additionally, research has shown CMV to be less of an issue when testing interaction effects, which all our hypotheses predicted (Siemsen et al., 2010); and the nature of the two‐way interaction between CSR perceptions and CSR‐RA among employees with higher individualism was substantially different ”
When and how health‐oriented leadership relates to employee well‐being—The role of expectations, self‐care, and LMX (2021, background): “Furthermore, research has shown that interactive effects are less vulnerable to common method bias (Siemsen et al., 2010).”
Overqualification and Subjective Well-Being at Work: The Moderating Role of Job Autonomy and Culture (2015, background): “It is important to mention, however, that common method variance cannot account for interactions (Evans 1985; Lai et al. in press; Siemsen et al. 2010).”