Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs.

By Michael K. Lindell, D. J. Whitney. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001

8,450 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Economics and Econometrics, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c925352a4e4b0366c01b10d1416d2b3adf426e67

How researchers see this paper

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

In Applied Psychology

In Economics and Econometrics

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

The effect of rating scale format on response styles: the number of response categories and response catgory labels (2010, methodology): “In line with this, and referring to the work by Podsakoff et al. (2003) and Lindell and Whitney (2001), Rindfleisch et al. (2008) have recently recommended the use of different formats for predictor and outcome variables to minimize method bias carryover.”
Individual differences in the relationship between satisfaction with job rewards and job satisfaction (2013, methodology): “Hence, the test on common method variance of Lindell and Whitney (2001) was only”
The Impact of Supervisory Support on Organizational Commitment, Career Satisfaction, and Turnover Intention for Hospitality Frontline Employees (2015, methodology): “Common-method bias can be abridged by implementing several preemptive strategies, such as collecting data from different sources (Lindell & Whitney 2001; Podsakoff et al., 2003).”
Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in Indian SMEs: Universal and contingency perspectives (2016, methodology): “Finally, we followed Lindell and Whitney (2001) in choosing ‘firm’s sense of its history’, a variable theoretically unrelated to the dependent variable of firm performance (r = .005, ns), as marker variable for common method bias analysis.”
Blockchain technology for enhancing swift-trust, collaboration and resilience within a humanitarian supply chain setting (2020, methodology): “Thirdly, we applied the marker variable test (Lindell and Whitney 2001) which attempts to control for common method variance (CMV) via including a variable to the measurement model that is theoretically unrelated to the main constructs used in our model.”
A re-examination of the antecedents and impact of customer participation in service (2011, methodology): “Based on procedures recommended by Lindell and Whitney (2001), we chose a construct (external locus of control measure by three items adapted from Levenson, 1974) which is theoretically unrelated to the criterion constructs in the model.”
Common Method Variance in Advertising Research: When to Be Concerned and How to Control for It (2017, methodology): “…on is that the effects of CMV will most likely differ across research domains, study contexts, and specific constructs (or relationship types) under investigation (Cote and Buckley 1987; Crampton and Wagner 1994; Donaldson and Grant-Vallone 2002; Lindell and Whitney 2001; Podsakoff et al. 2003).”
Method Variance and Marker Variables: A Review and Comprehensive CFA Marker Technique (2010, methodology): “Analysis of Marker Variables With Partial Correlations In developing the correlational marker technique, Lindell and Whitney (2001) included five steps that are based on what they referred to as the CMV model, which proposes that a researcher’s substantive variables are contaminated by a single unme”