Zusammenfassung
Ein beim Design von Erhebungsstudien zu beachtender Aspekt ist die Vermeidung von systematischen Messfehlern, insbesondere der Common Method Variance (Ernst 2003, S. 1250, Podsakoff et al. 2003). Es ist weitestgehend akzeptiert, dass Korrelationen zwischen mit der gleichen Methode gemessenen Variablen durch Common Method Variance aufgebläht werden können. Podsakoff et al. (2003, S. 879) schreiben: “Most researchers agree that common method variance [...] is a potential problem in behavioral research”. Bagozzi et al. (1991, S. 422) führen dies noch weiter aus: “A hypothesis might be rejected or accepted because of excessive error in measurement, not necessarily because of inadequacy or adequacy of theory”.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Literatur
Ailawadi, K. L., R. P. Dant und D. Grewal (2004): The Difference between Perceptual and Objective Measures: An Empirical Analysis,Cambridge.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1998): A Prospectus for Theory Construction in Marketing: Revised and Revisited, in: Hildebrandt, L. und C. Homburg (Hrsg.): Die Kausalanalyse. Ein Instrument der Empirischen Betriebswirtschaftlichen Forschung, Stuttgart, 45–81.
Bagozzi, R. P., Y. Yi und L. W. Phillips (1991): Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research, Administrative Science Quarterly, 63, 421–458.
Bortz, J. und N. Döring (1995): Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Sozialwissenschaftler, 2. Aufl., Berlin et al.
Boswell, W. R., J. W. Boudreau und B. B. Dunford (2004): The Outcomes and Correlates of Job Search Objectives: Searching to Leave or Searching for Leverage?, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1083–1091
Brief, A. P., M. J. Burke, J. M. George, B. S. Robinson und J. Webster (1988): Should Negative Affectivity Remain an Unmeasured Variable in the Study of Job Stress?, Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 191–198.
Burke, M. J., A. P. Brief und J. M. George (1993): The Role of Negative Affectivity in Understanding Relations between Self-Reports of Stressors and Strains: A Comment on the Applied Psychology Literature, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 402–426.
Campbell, D. T. und D. W. Fiske (1959): Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait Multimethod Matrix, Psychological Bulletin, 52, 6, 81–105.
Chan, D. (2001): Method Effects of Positive Affectivity, Negative Affectivity, and Impression Management in Self-Reports of Work Attitudes, Human Performance, 14, 77–96.
Chen, P. Y. und P. E. Spector (1991): Negative Affectivity as the Underlying Cause of Correlations between Stressors and Strains, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 398–407.
Churchill, G. A. (1979): A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 1, 64–73.
Conolly, J. J. und C. Viswesvaran (2000): The Role of Affectivity in Job Satisfaction: A Meta Analysis, Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 265–281.
Cote, J. A. und M. R. Buckley (1987): Estimating Trait, Method, and Error Variance: Generalizing Across 70 Construct Validation Studies, Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 315–318.
Crampton, S. und J. Wagner (1994): Percept-Percept Inflation in Microorganizational Research: An Investigation of Prevalence and Effect, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67–76.
Doty, D. H. und W. H. Glick (1998): Common Methods Bias: Does Common Methods Variance Really Bias Results?, Organizational Research Methods, 1, 374–406.
Ernst, H. (2001): Erfolgsfaktoren neuer Produkte: Grundlagen für eine valide empirische Forschung,Wiesbaden.
Ernst, H. (2003): Ursachen eines Informant Bias und dessen Auswirkung auf die Validität empirischer betriebswirtschaftlicher Forschung, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 73, 12, 1249–1275.
Frese, M. (1985): Stress at Work and Psychosomatic Complaints: A Causal Interpretation, Journal ofApplied Psychology, 70, 314–328.
Greve, G. (2006): Erfolgsfaktoren von Customer-Relationship-Management-ImplementierungenDUV, Wiesbaden.
Harman, H. H. (1967): Modern Factor AnalysisChicago.
Hunter, J. E., F. L. Schmidt und G. B. Jackson (1982): Meta-Analysis: Cumulating Research Findings Across StudiesBeverly Hills, CA.
Jex, S. M. und P. E. Spector (1996): The Impact of Negative Affectivity on Stressors and Strain Relations: A Replication and Extension, Work and Stress, 10, 36–45.
Kumar, N., L. W. Stern und E. W. Anderson (1993): Conducting Interorganizational Research Using Key Informants, Academy of Management Journal, 36, 6, 1633–1651.
Moorman, R. H. und P. M. Podsakoff (1992): A Meta-Analytic Review and Empirical Test of the Potential Confounding Effects of Social Desirability Response Sets in Organizational Behavior Research, Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 65, 131–149.
Ones, D. S., C. Viswesvaran und A. D. Reiss (1996): Role of Social Desirability in Personality Testing for Personnel Selection: The Red Herring, Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660–679
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, Y. Lee und N. R. Podsakoff (2003): Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 5, 879–903.
Podsakoff, R. M. und D. W. Organ (1986): Self-reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects, Journal of Management, 12, 69–82.
Rorer, L. G. (1965): The Great Response-Style Myth, Psychological Bulletin, 63, 129–156.
Shadish, W. R., T. D. Cook und D. T. Campbell (2002): Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal InferenceBoston.
Spector, P. E. (2006): Method Variance in Organizational Research. Truth or Urban Legend?, Organizational Research Methods9, 2, 221–232.
Spector, R. E., S. M. Jex und P. Y. Chen (1995): Personality Traits as Predictors of Objective Job Characteristics, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 16, 59–65.
Williams, L. J. und S.E. Anderson (1994): An Alternative Approach to Method Effects Using Latent-Variable-Models: Applications in Organizational Behavior Research, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 323–331.
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Söhnchen, F. (2009). Common Method Variance und Single Source Bias. In: Albers, S., Klapper, D., Konradt, U., Walter, A., Wolf, J. (eds) Methodik der empirischen Forschung. Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-96406-9_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-96406-9_10
Publisher Name: Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-8349-1703-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-322-96406-9
eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)