Exploring Common Method Variance in Analytics Research in the Indian Context: A Comparative Study with Known Techniques

被引:14
作者
Saxena, Mansi [1 ,4 ]
Bagga, Teena [1 ]
Gupta, Sangeeta [2 ]
Kaushik, Neeraj [3 ]
机构
[1] Amity Univ, Amity Business Sch, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
[2] Management Educ & Res Inst, Delhi, India
[3] Natl Inst Technol, Dept Business Adm, Kurukshetra, Haryana, India
[4] Amity Univ, Amity Business Sch, Noida 201303, Uttar Pradesh, India
关键词
Common method variance; common latent factor; comprehensive confirmatory factor analysis marker approach; sensitivity analysis; HR analytics; METHOD BIAS; ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH; INFORMATION-TECHNOLOGY; NEGATIVE AFFECTIVITY; CONSTRUCT-VALIDITY; USER ACCEPTANCE; SELF-REPORTS; WORK; PERFORMANCE; ERROR;
D O I
10.1177/23197145221099098
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
The correlational marker technique by Lindell and Whitney for controlling method variance by adding an unrelated variable in the study is gaining a rage of debate and demands analysis study. This article explores common method variance in HR analytics research made in the Indian context. The study makes a comparative study upon common method variance with three known techniques. In our study, we test the biases in the HR analytics data using Harman's single-factor test, the common latent factor technique and the comprehensive confirmatory factor analysis marker approach. Common method variance was tested through Analysis of Moment Structures, version 21.0, by adding an unrelated variable. This article explains the implementation and testing of a marker variable and its impact in comparison to other practices for bias testing. The article also discusses the importance of selecting a marker variable in the questionnaire while collecting data.
引用
收藏
页码:553 / 569
页数:17
相关论文
共 64 条
  • [1] An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth a Pound of Cure: Improving Research Quality Before Data Collection
    Aguinis, Herman
    Vandenberg, Robert J.
    [J]. ANNUAL REVIEW OF ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, VOL 1, 2014, 1 : 569 - 595
  • [2] Detecting Common Method Bias: Performance of the Harman's Single-Factor Test
    Aguirre-Urreta, Miguel, I
    Hu, Jiang
    [J]. DATA BASE FOR ADVANCES IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS, 2019, 50 (02): : 45 - 70
  • [3] Al-Qudah S., 2020, Problems and Perspectives in Management, V18, P219, DOI [DOI 10.21511/PPM.18(1).2020.19, 10.21511/ppm.18, DOI 10.21511/PPM.18]
  • [4] On making causal claims: A review and recommendations
    Antonakis, John
    Bendahan, Samuel
    Jacquart, Philippe
    Lalive, Rafael
    [J]. LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY, 2010, 21 (06) : 1086 - 1120
  • [5] ASSESSING CONSTRUCT-VALIDITY IN ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH
    BAGOZZI, RP
    LI, YJ
    PHILLIPS, LW
    [J]. ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, 1991, 36 (03) : 421 - 458
  • [6] MULTITRAIT-MULTIMETHOD MATRICES IN CONSUMER RESEARCH
    BAGOZZI, RP
    YI, YJ
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 1991, 17 (04) : 426 - 439
  • [7] Bandalos DL, 2006, QUANT METH EDUC BEHA, P385
  • [8] Bassi L., 2011, PeopleStrategy, V34/2, P14, DOI DOI 10.1108/HRMID.2012.04420BAA.010
  • [9] Baumgartner H., 1996, INT J RES MARK, V13, P139, DOI [10.1016/0167-8116(95)00038-0, DOI 10.1016/0167-8116(95)00038-0, 10.1016/0167-8116, DOI 10.1016/0167-8116]
  • [10] Brown K., 2022, SAP CTR BUSINESS INS