A panel of experts describes the nature of, and remedies for, method variance. In an attempt to help the reader understand the nature of method variance, the authors describe their experiences with method variance both on the giving and the receiving ends of the editorial review process, as well as their interpretation of other reviewers’ comments. They then describe methods of data analysis and research design, which have been used for detecting and eliminating the effects of method variance. Most methods have some utility, but none prevent the researcher from making faulty inferences. The authors conclude with suggestions for resolving disputes about method variance.
Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. ( 1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
2.
Campbell, J.P. ( 1982). Editorial: Some remarks from the matrix. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 691-700.
3.
Chan, D. ( 2001). Method effects of positive affectivity, negative affectivity, and impression management in self-reports of work attitudes. Human Performance, 14, 77-96.
4.
Chan, D. ( 2008). So why ask me?-Are self-report data really that bad? In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Received doctrine, verity, and fable in the organizational and social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. ( 1997). Video-based versus paper-and-pencil method of assessment in situational judgment tests: Subgroup differences in test performance and face validity perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 143-159.
6.
Crampton, S.M., & Wagner, J.A. III. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67-76.
7.
Dalal, R.S. ( 2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241-1255.
8.
Frese, M., & Zapf, D. ( 1994). Methodological issues in the study of work stress: Objective vs subjective measurement of work stress and the question of longitudinal studies. Oxford, UK: John Wiley .
9.
Lance, C.E. ( 2008). Why assessment centers do not work the way they are supposed to. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 84-97.
10.
Lance, C.E., Baranik, L.E., Lau, A.R., & Scharlau, E.A. (2009). If it ain’t trait it must be method: (Mis)application of the multitrait-multimethod methodology in organizational research. In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Received doctrine, verity, and fable in organizational and social research (pp. 339-362). New York: Routledge.
11.
Lance, C.E., Hoffman, B.J., Baranik, L.E., & Gentry, W.A. ( 2008). Rater source factors represent important subcomponents of the criterion construct space, not rater bias. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 223-232.
12.
Lance, C.E., & Sloan, C.E. ( 1993). Relationships between overall and life facet satisfaction: A multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) study. Social Indicators Research , 30, 1-15.
13.
Lindell, M.K., & Whitney, D.J. ( 2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114-121.
14.
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, 88, 879-903.
15.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Keith, N., Moosbrugger, H., & Hodapp, V. ( 2004). Decomposing person and occasion-specific effects: An extension of latent state-trait theory to hierarchical models. Psychological Methods, 9, 198-219.
16.
Schmitt, N., Pulakos, E.D., Nason, E., & Whitney, D.J. ( 1996). Likability and similarity as potential sources of predictor-related criterion bias in validation research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 272-286.
17.
Spector, P.E. ( 1977). What to do with significant multivariate effects in multivariate analyses of variance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 158-163.
18.
Spector, P.E. ( 2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221-232.
19.
Spector, P.E., & Brannick, M.T. (1995). The nature and effects of method variance in organizational research. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology: 1995 (pp. 249-274). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.
20.
Spector, P.E., Dwyer, D.J., & Jex, S.M. ( 1988). Relation of job stressors to affective, health, and performance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 11-19.
21.
Williams, L.J., & Anderson, S.E. (1994). An alternative approach to method effects by using latent-variable models: Applications in organizational behavior research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 323-331.
22.
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 , 74, 462-446.
