Common Method Variance in IS Research: A Comparison of Alternative Approaches and a Reanalysis of Past Research

References

• Agarwal R., Karahanna E. Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quart. (2000) 24(4):665–682Crossref, Google Scholar
• Avolio B. J., Bass B. M. Identifying common methods variance with data collected from a single source: An unresolved sticky issue. J. Management (1991) 17(3):571–587Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bagozzi R. P.Causal Models in Marketing (1980) (John Wiley and Sons, New York) Google Scholar
• Bagozzi R. P., Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Marketing Sci. (1988) 16(1):74–94Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bhattacherjee A. Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quart. (2001) 25(3):351–370Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bollen K. A.Structural Equation Modeling with Latent Variables (1989) (John Wiley and Sons, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bottomley P. A., Holden S. J. S. Do we really know how consumers evaluate brand extensions? Empirical generalizations based on secondary analysis of eight studies. J. Marketing Res. (2001) 38(4):494–500Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buckley M. R., Cote J. A., Comstock S. M. Measurement errors in behavioral sciences: The case of personality/attitude research. Educational Psych. Measurement (1990) 50(3):447–474Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell D. T., Fiske D. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psych. Bull. (1959) 56(2):81–105Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chwelos P., Benbasat I., Dexter A. Research report: Empirical test of an EDI adoption model. Inform. Systems Res. (2001) 12(3):304–321Link, Google Scholar
• Cohen J.Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (1977) 2nd ed.(Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ) Google Scholar
• Cote J. A., Buckley M. R. Estimating trait, method, and error variance: Generalizing across 70 construct validation studies. J. Marketing Res. (1987) 24(3):315–318Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cote J. A., Buckley M. R. Measurement error and theory testing in consumer research: An illustration of the importance of construct validation. J. Consumer Res. (1988) 14(4):579–582Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crampton S. M., Wagner III J. A. Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. J. Appl. Psych. (1994) 79(1):67–76Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis F. D., Bagozzi R. P., Warshaw P. R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Sci. (1989) 35(8):982–1003Link, Google Scholar
• Feldman J. M., Lynch J. G. Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. J. Appl. Psych. (1988) 73(3):421–435Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fornell C., Larcker D. F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Marketing Res. (1981) 18(1):39–50Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ganster D. C., Hennessey H. W., Luthans F. Social desirability responses effects: Three alternative models. Acad. Management J. (1983) 26(2):321–331Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gefen D. Tutorial assessing unidimensionality through LISREL: An explanation and example. Comm. Association Inform. Systems (2003) 12(2):1–26Google Scholar
• Gefen D., Karahanna E., Straub D. Trust and TAM in online shopping and integrated model. MIS Quart. (2003) 27(1):51–90Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gefen D., Straub D., Boudreau M. Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Comm. Association Inform. Systems (2000) 7(August):1–78Google Scholar
• Hair J. F., Anderson R. E., Tatham R. L., Black W. C.Multivariate Data Analysis (1998) 5th ed.(Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) Google Scholar
• Harrison D. A., McLaughlin M. E., Coalter T. M. Context, cognition, and common method variance. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (1996) 68(3):246–261Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hu L., Bentler P. M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Model. (1999) 6(1):1–55Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hufnagel E. M., Conca C. User response data: The potential for errors and biases. Inform. Systems Res. (1994) 5(1):48–73Link, Google Scholar
• Jonsson Y., Schumacker R. E., Marcoulides G. A. Modeling interaction and nonlinear effects: A step-by-step LISREL example. Interaction and Nonlinear Effects in Structural Equation Modeling (1998) (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ) 17–42Google Scholar
• Jöreskog K. G., Schumacker R. E., Marcoulides G. A. Interaction and nonlinear modeling: Issues and approaches. Interaction and Nonlinear Effects in Structural Equation Modeling (1998) (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ) 239–250Google Scholar
• Jöreskog K., Sörbom D.LISREL8: User’s Reference Guide (1996) (Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL) Google Scholar
• Joshi A. W., Stump R. L. The contingent effect of specific asset investments on joint action in manufacturer-supplier relationships: An empirical test of the moderating role of reciprocal asset investments, uncertainty, and trust. J. Acad. Marketing Sci. (1999) 27(3):291–305Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kemery E. R., Dunlap W. P. Partialling factor scores does not control method variance: A reply to Podsakoff and Todor. J. Management (1986) 12(4):525–544Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim S. S., Malhotra N. K. A longitudinal model of continued IS use: An integrative view of four mechanisms underlying postadoption phenomena. Management Sci. (2005) 51(5):741–755Link, Google Scholar
• Koufaris M. Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Inform. Systems Res. (2002) 13(2):205–223Link, Google Scholar
• Lance C. E. Residual centering, exploratory and confirmatory moderator analysis, and decomposition of effects in path models containing interactions. Appl. Psych. Measurement (1988) 12(2):163–175Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lindell M. K., Brandt C. J. Climate quality and climate consensus as mediators of the relationship between organizational antecedents and outcomes. J. Appl. Psych. (2000) 85(3):331–348Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lindell M. K., Whitney D. J. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. J. Appl. Psych. (2001) 86(1):114–121Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lumpkin J. R., Darden W. R. Relating television preference viewing to shopping orientations, life styles, and demographics: The examination of perceptual and preference dimensions of television programming. J. Advertising (1982) 11(4):56–67Crossref, Google Scholar
• Malhotra N. K.Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation (2004) 4th ed.(Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ) Google Scholar
• Malhotra N. K., Kim S. S., Agarwal J. Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Inform. Systems Res. (2004) 15(4):336–355Link, Google Scholar
• Marsh H. W., Hocevar D. A new, more powerful approach to multitrait-multimethod analyses: Application of second-order confirmatory factor analysis. J. Appl. Psych. (1988) 73(1):107–117Crossref, Google Scholar
• Millsap R. E. A cautionary note on the detection of method variance in multitrait-multimethod data. J. Appl. Psych. (1990) 75(3):350–353Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moore G. C., Benbasat I. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inform. Systems Res. (1991) 2(3):192–222Link, Google Scholar
• Mossholder K. W., Bennett N., Kemery E. R., Wesolowski M. A. Relationships between bases of power and work reactions: The mediational role of procedural justice. J. Management (1998) 24(4):533–552Google Scholar
• O’Guinn T. C., Faber R. J. Compulsive buying: A phenomenological exploration. J. Consumer Res. (1989) 16(2):147–157Crossref, Google Scholar
• Plouffe R., Hulland J., Vandenbosch M. Research report: Richness versus parsimony in modeling technology adoption decision—Understanding merchant adoption of a smart-card payment system. Inform. Systems Res. (2001) 12(2):208–222Link, Google Scholar
• Podsakoff P. M., Organ D. W. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. J. Management (1986) 12(4):531–544Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podsakoff P. M., Todor W. D. Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and group processes and productivity. J. Management (1985) 11(1):55–73Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Lee J. Y., Podsakoff N. P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psych. (2003) 88(5):879–903Crossref, Google Scholar
• Segars A. H. Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: A paradigm and illustration within the context of information systems research. Omega (1997) 25(1):107–121Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith H. J., Milberg S. J., Burke S. J. Information privacy: Measuring individuals’ concerns about organizational practices. MIS Quart. (1996) 20:167–196Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spector P. Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem? J. Appl. Psych. (1987) 72(3):438–443Crossref, Google Scholar
• Straub D. Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS Quart. (1989) 13(2):147–169Crossref, Google Scholar
• Straub D., Boudreau M. C., Gefen D. Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Comm. Association Inform. Systems (2004) 13:380–427Crossref, Google Scholar
• Szajna B. Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Management Sci. (1996) 44(1):85–92Link, Google Scholar
• Tourangeau R., Rips L. J., Rasinski K.The Psychology of Survey Response (2000) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation and emotion in the technology acceptance model. Inform. Systems Res. (2000) 11(4):342–365Link, Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V., Davis F. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Sci. (2000) 46(2):186–204Link, Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V., Morris M. G., Ackerman P. L. A longitudinal field investigation of gender differences in individual technology adoption decision-making processes. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (2000) 83(1):33–60Crossref, Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V., Morris M., Gordon D., Davis F. Use acceptance of information technology: Towards a unified view. MIS Quart. (2003) 27(3):425–478Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wells W., Tigert D. Activities, interests and opinions. J. Advertising Res. (1971) 11(4):27–35Google Scholar
• Williams L. J., Anderson S. E. An alternative approach to method effects by using latent-variable models: Applications in organizational behavior research. J. Appl. Psych. (1994) 79(3):323–331Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams L. J., Brown B. K. Method variance in organizational behavior and human resources research: Effects on correlations, path coefficients, and hypothesis testing. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (1994) 57:185–209Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams L. J., Cote J. A., Buckley M. R. Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact? J. Appl. Psych. (1989) 74(3):462–468Crossref, Google Scholar
• Woszczynski A. B., Whitman M. E. Common method variance in IS research: Should we be concerned? Proc. 7th Americas Conf. on Inform. Systems (2001) Boston, MA:1643–1645Google Scholar