Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using Multi-Informant Designs to Address Key Informant and Common Method Bias

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Quantitative Marketing and Marketing Management

Abstract

The important key informant and common method problems in survey research are taken up in this article. The authors focus on the question how researchers can rely on multiinformant designs in order to limit the threats of key informant and common method bias on the validity and reliability of survey research. In particular, they show how researchers can effectively design studies that employ multiple informants and how multi-informant data can be aggregated in order to obtain more accurate results than can be obtained with single informant studies.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature

  1. Bagozzi, R. P./Yi, Y. (1991): Multitrait-multimethod matrices in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, 4, pp. 426–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baruch, Y./Holtom, B. C. (2008): Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, Vol. 61, 8, pp. 1139–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baumgartner, H./Steenkamp, J.-B. (2001): Response styles in marketing research: a cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, 2, pp. 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bazerman, M. H./Moore, D. A. (2009): Judgment in managerial decision making, 7th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bliese, P. D. (1998): Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations: a simulation. Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 1, 4, pp. 355–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bliese, P. D. (2000): Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: implications for data aggregation and analysis. In: Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. (eds.). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 349–381.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brown, R. D./Hauenstein, N. M. A. (2005): Interrater agreement reconsidered: an alternative to the rwg indices. Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 8, 2, pp. 165–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Campbell, D. T./Fiske, D. W. (1959): Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 56, 2, pp. 81–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chandon, P./Morwitz, V. G./Reinartz, W. J. (2005): Do intentions really predict behavior? Selfgenerated validity effects in survey research. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, April, pp. 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Churchill, G. A. (1979): A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, 1, pp. 64–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cohen, J. (1960): A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 20, 1, pp. 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Conant, J. S./Mokwa, M. P./Varadarajan, P. R. (1990): Strategic types, distinctive marketing competencies and organizational Performance: a multiple measures-based study. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, 5, pp. 365–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cote, J. A./Buckley, M. R. (1987): Estimating trait, method, and error variance: generalizing across 70 construct validation studies. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, 3, pp. 315–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cote, J. A./Buckley, M. R. (1988): Measurement error and theory testing in consumer research: An illustration of the importance of construct validation. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, 1, pp. 579–582.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Crampton, S. M./Wagner, J. A. (1994): Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: an investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, 1, pp. 67–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dixon, M./Cunningham, G. B. (2006): Data aggregation in multilevel analysis: a review of conceptual and statistical issues. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, Vol. 10, 2, pp. 85–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Doty, D. H./Glick, W. H. (1998): Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results. Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 1, 4, pp. 374–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Evans, M. G. (1985): A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 36, 3, pp. 305–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Feldman, J. M./Lynch, J. G. (1988): Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73, 3, pp. 421–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Glick, W. H. (1985): Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, 3, pp. 601–616.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Golden, B. R. (1992): The past is the past – Or is it? The use of retrospective accounts as indicators of past strategy. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35, 4, pp. 848–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Goodman, L. A. (1961): Snowball sampling. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32, pp. 148–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hambrick, D. C. (1981): Strategic awareness within top management teams. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 2, 3, pp. 263–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Harrison, D. A./McLaughlin, M. E./Coalter, T. M. (1996): Context, cognition, and common method variance: psychometric and verbal protocol evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 68, 3, pp. 246–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Heck, R. H. (2001): Multilevel modeling with SEM. In: Marcoulides, G. A., & Schumacker, R. E. (eds.). New developments and techniques in Structural Equation Modeling. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 89–128.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Homburg, Ch./Fürst, A. (2005): How organizational complaint handling drives customer loyalty: an analysis of the mechanistic and the organic Approach. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, 3, pp. 95–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Homburg, Ch./Klarmann, M. (2009): Multi Informant-Designs in der empirischen betriebswirtschaftlichen Forschung, Die Betriebswirtschaft, Vol. 69, 2, pp. 147–171.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Homburg, Ch./Droll, M./Totzek, D: (2008): Customer prioritization: Does it pay off, and how should it be implemented? Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72, 5, pp. 110–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. James, L. R./Demaree, R. G./Wolf, G: (1984): Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, 1, pp. 85–98.

    Google Scholar 

  30. James, L. R./Demaree, R. G./Wolf, G. (1993): rwg: an assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, 2, pp. 306–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jarvis, C. B./MacKenzie, S. B./Podsakoff, P. M. (2003): A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30, September, pp. 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. John, G./Reve, T. (1982): The reliability and validity of key informant data from dyadic relationships in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, 4, pp. 517–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kenny, D. A./Kashy, D. A./Cook, W. L. (2006): Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kirca, A. H., Jayachandran, S./Bearden, W. O. (2005): Market orientation: a meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, 2, pp. 24–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Klarmann, M. (2008): Methodische Problemfelder der Erfolgsfaktorenforschung: Bestandsaufnahme und empirische Analysen, Wiesbaden: Gabler.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Klein, K. J./Bliese, P. D./Kozlowski, S. W./Dansereau, F./Gavin, M. B./Griffin, M. A./Hofmann, D. A./James, L. R./Yammarino, F. J./Bligh, M. C. (2000): Multilevel analysis techniques: commonalities, differences, and continuing questions. In: Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. (eds.). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, pp. 512–553.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kozlowski, S. W./Hattrup, K. (1992): A disagreement about within-group agreement: disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77, 2, pp. 161–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kumar, N./Stern, L. W./Anderson, J. C. (1993): Conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, 6, pp. 1633–1651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lance, C. E./LaPointe, J. A./Fisicaro, S. A. (1994): Tests of three causal models of halo rater error. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 57, 1, pp. 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. LeBreton, J. M./Senter, J. (2008): Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 11, 4, pp. 815–852.

    Google Scholar 

  41. LeBreton, J. M./James, L. R./Lindell, M. K. (2005): Recent issues regarding rWG, r*WG, rWG(J), and r*WG(J). Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 8, 1, pp. 128–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Libby, R./Blashfield, R. K. (1978): Performance of a composite as a function of the number of judges. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 21, 2, pp. 121–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mezias, J. M./Starbuck, W. H. (2003): Studying the accuracy of managers’ perceptions: a research odyssey. British Journal of Management, Vol. 14, 1, pp. 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Miles, R. E./Snow, C. C. (1978): Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Natter, M./Mild, A./Wagner, U./Taudes, A. (2008): Planning new tariffs at tele.ring: the application and impact of an integrated segmentation, targeting, and positioning tool. Marketing Science, Vol. 27, 4, pp. 600–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Phillips, L. W. (1981): Assessing measurement error in key informant reports: a methodological note on organizational analysis in marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, 4, pp. 395–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Podsakoff, P. M./Organ, D. W. (1986): Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management, Vol. 12, 4, pp. 531–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Podsakoff, P. M./MacKenzie, S. B./Lee, J.-Y./Podsakoff, N. P. (2003): Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, 5, pp. 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Reinartz, W./Krafft, M./Hoyer, W. D. (2004): The customer relationship management process: measurement and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 41, 3, pp. 293–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Rindfleisch, A./Malter, A. J./Ganesan, S./Moorman, C. (2008): Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey research: concepts, findings, and guidelines. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 45, June, pp. 261–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sathe, V. (1978): Institutional versus questionnaire measures of organizational structure. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 21, 2, pp. 227–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Schmidt, F. L./Hunter, J. E. (1989): Interrater reliability coefficients cannot be computed when only one stimulus is rated. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, 2, pp. 368–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Shrout, P. E./Fleiss, J. L. (1979): Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 86, 2, pp. 420–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Starbuck, W. H./Mezias, J. M. (1996): Opening Pandora ’s Box: studying the accuracy of managers’ perceptions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17, 2, pp. 99–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Tinsley, H. E. A./Weiss, D. J. (1975): Interrater reliability and agreement of subjective judgements. Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 22, 4, pp. 358–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Tversky, A./Kahneman, D. (1974): Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, Vol. 185, September, pp. 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Van Bruggen, G. H./Lilien, G. L./Kacker, M. (2002): Informants in organizational marketing research: why use multiple informants and how to aggregate responses. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39, 4, pp. 469–478.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Vandenberg, R. J./Lance, C. E. (2000): A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 3, 1, pp. 4–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Venkatraman, N./Ratmanujam, V. (1987): Measurement of business economic performance: an examination of method convergence. Journal of Management, Vol. 13, 1, pp. 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Vosgerau, J./Anderson, E./Ross, W. T. (2008): Can inaccurate perceptions in business-to-business (b2b) relationships be beneficial? Marketing Science, Vol. 72, 2, pp. 205–224.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Wall, T. D./Michie, J./Patterson, M./Wood, S. J./Sheehan, M./Clegg, C. W./West, M. (2004): On the validity of subjective measures of company performance. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57, 1, pp. 95–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wieseke, J. (2008): Mehrebenenmodelle. In: Herrmann, A., Homburg, Ch., & Klarmann, M. (eds.). Handbuch Marktforschung. 3rd ed. Wiesbaden: Gabler, pp. 499–519.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Williams, L. J./Brown, B. K. (1994): Method variance in organizational behavior and human resources research: effects on correlations, path coefficients, and hypothesis testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 57, 2, pp. 185–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Williams, L. J./Cote, J. A./Buckley, M. R. (1989): Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: reality or artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, 3, pp. 462–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

    Christian Homburg PhD & Dirk Totzek PhD

  2. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany

    Martin Klarmann PhD

Authors
  1. Christian Homburg PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Klarmann PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dirk Totzek PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Chair of International Marketing, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Adamantios Diamantopoulos

  2. Braunschweig, Germany

    Wolfgang Fritz

  3. Berlin, Germany

    Lutz Hildebrandt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Gabler Verlag | Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Homburg, C., Klarmann, M., Totzek, D. (2012). Using Multi-Informant Designs to Address Key Informant and Common Method Bias. In: Diamantopoulos, A., Fritz, W., Hildebrandt, L. (eds) Quantitative Marketing and Marketing Management. Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-3722-3_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation