Assessing Common Method Bias: Problems with the ULMC Technique

521 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.

Partial least squares path modeling: Time for some serious second thoughts (2016, methodology): “…have the capabilities of modern SEM techniques has misled a large number of researchers into believing that the ULMC method as presented by Liang et al. would work (Chin et al., 2012), including a few authors in JOM (Kortmann et al., 2014; Oh et al., 2012; Perols et al., 2013; Rosenzweig, 2009).”
Exploring Consumer Behavior in Virtual Reality Tourism Using an Extended Stimulus-Organism-Response Model (2018, background): “Because the single-factor test has been found to have some limitations (Chin, Thatcher, and Wright 2012), a marker variable approach was also employed.”
Minimum sample size estimation in PLS‐SEM: The inverse square root and gamma‐exponential methods (2018, methodology): “This approach has been commonly used in methodological PLS-SEM investigations published in IS and statistics outlets (Chin et al., 2012; Goodhue et al., 2012; Kock, 2016).”