How (not) to solve the problem: An evaluation of scholarly responses to common source bias

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 285-308

  Favero, Nathan ^a   Bullock, Justin B ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84922536858     PISSN: 10531858     EISSN: 14779803     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jopart/muu020     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Baumgartner, Hans, and Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp. 2001. Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research 38:143-56.
2. Brewer, Gene A. 2006. All measures of performance are subjective: More evidence on US federal agencies. In Public service performance: Perspectives on measurement and management, ed. George A. Boyne, Kenneth J. Meier, Laurence J. O'Toole, Jr., and Richard W. Walker, 35-54. New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.
3. Brown, Ben, and Wm Reed Benedict. 2002. Perceptions of the police: Past findings, methodological issues, conceptual issues and policy implications. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 25:543-80.
4. Campbell, Donald T., and Donald W. Fiske. 1959. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56:81-105.
5. Cote, Joseph A., and M. Ronald Buckley. 1987. Estimating trait, method, and error variance: Generalizing across 70 construct validation studies. Journal of Marketing Research 24:315-18.
6. -. 1988. Measurement error and theory testing in consumer research: An illustration of the importance of construct validation. Journal of Consumer Research 14:579-82.
7. Doty, D. Harold, and William H. Glick. 1998. Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods 1:374-406.
8. Favero, Nathan, and Kenneth J. Meier. 2013. Evaluating urban public schools: Parents, teachers, and state assessments. Public Administration Review 73:401-12.
9. Grissom, Jason A. 2014. Is discord detrimental? Using institutional variation to identify the impact of public governing board conflict on outcomes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24:289-315.
10. Im, Tobin, Wonhyuk Cho, Porumbescu, Greg, and Jungho Park. 2012. Internet, trust in government, and citizen compliance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory doi:10.1093/jopart/mus037
11. Jung, Chan Su. 2013. Organizational goal ambiguity and job satisfaction in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory doi:10.1093/jopart/mut020
12. Kline, Rex B. 2011. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
13. Kwon, Illoong. 2012. Motivation, discretion, and corruption. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory doi:10.1093/jopart/mus062
14. Lance, Charles E., Dawson, Bryan, Birkelbach, David, and Brian J. Hoffman. 2010. Method effects, measurement error, and substantive conclusions. Organizational Research Methods 13:435-55.
15. Lee, Pei-Ching, Chen, Chin-Mei, and Chien-Heng Chou. 2013. Decreasing tax collectors' perceived social loafing through collaborative behaviors of taxpayers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory doi:10.1093/jopart/mut015
16. Lindell, Michael K., and Christina J. Brandt. 2000. Climate quality and climate consensus as mediators of the relationship between organizational antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 85:331-48.
17. Lindell, Michael K., and David J. Whitney. 2001. Accounting for common method variance in crosssectional designs. Journal of Applied Psychology 86:114-21.
18. Meier, Kenneth J., and Laurence J. O'Toole, Jr. 2013a. I think (I am doing well), therefore I am: Assessing the validity of administrators' self-assessments of performance. International Public Management Journal 16:1-27.
19. -. 2013b. Subjective organizational performance and measurement error: Common source bias and spurious relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23:429-56.
20. New York City Department of Education. 2014. NYC school survey. http://schools.nyc.gov/Accountability/tools/survey/default.htm (accessed February 3, 2014).
21. New York State Education Department. 2011. Violent and disruptive incidents-School safety & accountability. http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/vadir/vadir-accountability.html (accessed July 22, 2011).
22. Oberfield, Zachary W. 2014. Public management in time: A longitudinal examination of the full range of leadership theory. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24:407-29.
23. Podsakoff, Philip M., MacKenzie, Scott B., Lee, Jeong-Yeon, and Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88:879-903.
24. Podsakoff, Philip M., MacKenzie, Scott B., and Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2012. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology 63:539-69.
25. Podsakoff, Philip M., and Dennis W. Organ. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management 12:531-44.
26. Schein, Edgar H. 1992. Organizational culture and leadership. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
27. Sharma, Rajeev, Yetton, Philip, and Jeff Crawford. 2009. Estimating the effect of common method variance: The method-method pair technique with an illustration from TAM research. MIS Quarterly 33:473-90.
28. Siemsen, Enno, Roth, Aleda, and Pedro Oliveira. 2010. Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods 13:456-76.
29. Williams, Larry J., Cote, Joseph A.,and M. Ronald Buckley. 1989. Lack of method variance in selfreported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology 74:462-68.
30. Williams, Larry J., Hartman, Nathan, and Flavia Cavazotte. 2010. Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organizational Research Methods 13:477-514.