Skip to main content

Controlling for Common Method Variance in PLS Analysis: The Measured Latent Marker Variable Approach

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics ((PROMS,volume 56))

Abstract

Common method variance (CMV) continues to be an important issue for social scientists. To date, methodologists have yet to agree upon a best practice for detecting and controlling for CMV. In a recent paper, the unmeasured latent marker variable approach, a frequently employed technique, was shown to be incapable of detecting or controlling CMV in PLS analyses. Unfortunately, this was the only method to date suggested for handling CMV in PLS models. To fill this gap, we introduce a measured latent marker variable (MLMV) approach and demonstrate how it is able to both detect and correct for CMV when using Partial Least Squares.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. R. P. Bagozzi, “Measurement and meaning in information systems and organizational research: Methodological and philosophical foundations,” MIS Quarterly, 35, 261–292, (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  2. A. Burton-Jones, “Minimizing method bias through programmatic research,” MIS Quarterly,33, 445–471, (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  3. W. Chin, J. B. Thatcher, and R. T. Wright, “Assessing common method variance: Assessing the UMLC approach,” MIS Quarterly, 36, 1003–1019, (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  4. P. M. Podsakoff, S. B. MacKenzie, J.-Y. Lee, and N.P. Podsakoff, “Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedie,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903, (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. R. Sharma, P. Yetton, and J. Crawford, “Estimating the effect of common method variance: The method pair technique with an illustration from TAM research,” MIS Quarterly, 33, 491–512, (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  6. L. J. Williams, N. Hartman, and F. Cavazotte, “Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique,” Organizational Research Methods, 13, 477–514, (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wynne W. Chin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this paper

Cite this paper

Chin, W.W., Thatcher, J.B., Wright, R.T., Steel, D. (2013). Controlling for Common Method Variance in PLS Analysis: The Measured Latent Marker Variable Approach. In: Abdi, H., Chin, W., Esposito Vinzi, V., Russolillo, G., Trinchera, L. (eds) New Perspectives in Partial Least Squares and Related Methods. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, vol 56. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8283-3_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics