Detecting Common Method Bias: Performance of the Harman's Single-Factor Test

被引:304
作者
Aguirre-Urreta, Miguel, I [1 ]
Hu, Jiang [2 ]
机构
[1] Florida Int Univ, Miami, FL 33199 USA
[2] Texas Tech Univ, Lubbock, TX 79409 USA
来源
DATA BASE FOR ADVANCES IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS | 2019年 / 50卷 / 02期
关键词
Common Method Bias; Harman's Single-Factor Test; Simulation; METHOD VARIANCE; MONTE-CARLO; DESIGN; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1145/3330472.3330477
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
Lack of careful consideration of common method effects in empirical research can lead to several negative consequences for the interpretation of research outcomes, such as biased estimates of the validity and reliability of the measures employed as well as bias in the estimates of the relationships between constructs of interest, which in turn can affect hypothesis testing. Taken together, these make it very difficult to make any interpretations of the results when those are affected by substantive common method effects. In the literature, there are several preventive, detective, and corrective techniques that can be employed to assuage concerns about the possibility of common method effects underlying observed results. Among these, the most popular has been Harman's Single-Factor Test. Though researchers have argued against its effectiveness in the past, the technique has continued to be very popular in the discipline. Moreover, there is a dearth of empirical evidence on the actual effectiveness of the technique, which we sought to remedy with this research. Our results, based on extensive Monte Carlo simulations, indicate that the approach shows limited effectiveness in detecting the presence of common method effects and may thus be providing a false sense of security to researchers. We therefore argue against the use of the technique moving forward and provide evidence to support our position.
引用
收藏
页码:45 / 70
页数:26
相关论文
共 30 条
  • [1] A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology
    Agarwal, R
    Prasad, J
    [J]. INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH, 1998, 9 (02) : 204 - 215
  • [2] 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
  • [3] [Anonymous], 1988, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
  • [4] [Anonymous], MIS Q
  • [5] On making causal claims: A review and recommendations
    Antonakis, John
    Bendahan, Samuel
    Jacquart, Philippe
    Lalive, Rafael
    [J]. LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY, 2010, 21 (06) : 1086 - 1120
  • [6] Bandalos D.L., 2012, Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling, P92
  • [7] Bandalos DL, 2006, QUANT METH EDUC BEHA, P385
  • [8] CONVENTIONAL WISDOM ON MEASUREMENT - A STRUCTURAL EQUATION PERSPECTIVE
    BOLLEN, K
    LENNOX, R
    [J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 1991, 110 (02) : 305 - 314
  • [9] Instrumental Variables in Sociology and the Social Sciences
    Bollen, Kenneth A.
    [J]. ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY, VOL 38, 2012, 38 : 37 - 72
  • [10] Bollen KA, 2011, MIS QUART, V35, P359