' m; g- S. K0 l- L+ U& n4 B
谢谢罗老师的热情回复。看了您的那篇关于两个回归系数是否相等的文章,使我受益匪浅,才发现可以有那么多的方法去检验相关系数的差异。但我对您说的第一点有些不同的意见,对于同方法偏差,据我了解,大部分文献的观点都是可以从程序上降低和统计上控制两个方面减少同方法偏差的影响,只是统计方法中没有一种是完美的,为什么说没有统计方法可以解决呢?上述文章中提到的偏相关系数差异检验的方法的前提是研究者已经测得假定的共同方法偏差的来源,如社会称许性等,从而通过比较预测变量和效标变量之间的零阶相关系数和偏相关系数之间差异而检验共同方法偏差效应,当然这种方法具有忽视测量误差等缺点,但也应该是一个简单可行的方法,为什么您说这是好的杂志不会接受的方法呢?其实Podsakoff等(2003)就曾在Journal of Applied Psychology上探讨过这种方法(见附件)。6 R( r9 F# T. A" J, S4 W& ]
请您原谅学生我上述与您不一致的观点,由于我的论文中可能要使用这种方法,所以我想把这个问题搞清楚,以免造成误用。期待与您的进一步探讨。谢谢~作者: Kenneth 时间: 2012-6-9 20:44
我教了方法论这么多年,podsakoff 的这篇文章我当然读过。你有兴趣的话,还可以读读下面的其他文献。这是我的课程中关于CMV的阅读要求。: t3 Z/ z* y4 D# m: N
01. Spector, P.E., & Brannick, M.T. (2010). Common method issues: An introduction to the feature topic in organizational research methods. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 403-406.! }% Z$ t* r! ]* a! a) E
02. Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common Method Bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456-476.' G; `2 `: ~2 u, R* \; R
03. Richardson, H.A., Simmering, M.J., & Sturman, M.C. (2009). A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 762-800.1 R2 O" x2 h6 \8 t/ I( v* V& }
04. Lance, C.E., Dawson, B., Birkelbach, D., & Hoffman, B.J. (2010). Method effects, measurement error, and substantive conclusions. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3),435-455. : H: w( N) h- f; i05. Brannick, M.T., Chan, D., Conway, J.M., Lance, C.E., & Spector, P.E. (2010). What is method variance and how can we cope with it? A panel discussion. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 407-420. % e# k: T/ U8 z& i( |06. William, L.J., Hartman, N., & Cavazotte, F. (2010). Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 477-514.& ~/ L+ l- o2 N1 s/ u
07. Pace, V.L. (2010). Method variance from the perspectives of reviewers: Poorly understood problem or overemphasized complaint? Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 421-434. & F3 Z |) m9 l* s08. Spector, P.E. (2008). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221-232. 4 N& b J8 i2 o2 T8 [8 q$ U' z' x4 T09. Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S., & Patil, A. (2006) Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science, 52(12), 1865-1883.3 H8 {; v. i" q& X% O1 a9 \ B# N
10. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.8 a. O1 E: P' M1 K7 L) F# K/ y, p
11.Vandenberg, R.J. (2006) Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Where, pray tell, did they get this idea? Organizational Research Methods,9(2), 194-201. 9 Y6 }& Z( D1 K. K0 [' [0 \7 G12. Kline, T.J.B., Sulsky, L.M., & Rever-Moriyama, S.D. (2000). Common method variance and specification errors: A practical approach to detection. The Journal of Psychology, 134(4), 401-0421.' E! _: ^) q, B
13. Bollen, K.A. & Paxton, P. (1998). Detection and determinants of bias in subjective measures. American Sociological Review, 63, 465-478. : F$ R& _" ?; J1 R14. Boone, C. & Brabander, B. (1997). Self-reports and CEO locus of control research: A note. Organization Studies, 18(6), 949-971.4 u; t% t7 j9 P% q2 B# z3 n$ d! ^
15. Spector, P.E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(5), 385-392.' v- n( r; W# Y/ ~
16. 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(3), 462-468. ! J& N. x8 j( V17. Spector, P.E. (1992). A consideration of the validity and meaning of self-report measures of job conditions. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7, 123-151./ C7 y! n7 L; D/ N
18. Spector, P.E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 438-443.: h" @* x7 D; Y o/ }3 o1 p( s: \
19. Sharma, R., Yetton, P., & Crawford, J. (2009). Estimating the effect of common method variance: The method-method pair technique with an illustration from TAM research. MIS Quarterly, 33(3), 473-490. 7 l/ E* {2 [+ `* ~7 k. e / M+ m% H5 e7 s; O请不要忘记,你引的文章是在2003年发表的,距离现在已经是 10 年了。那时候的研究要求如何和现在的方法相比呢? + S8 e6 K; L0 M2 s; S" J) J! X) ]5 a% a1 D3 K0 v7 [: M
当然我不代表所有的一级期刊的评委,我只是提出我的观察而已。不过,我觉得我倒有点证据的。你可以看看在最近五年的一级期刊中,看看有多少文章是用同源和 cross-sectional 的方法来收集数据的?这个事实是客观的,总比我们在这里用口来辩为准确吧。 + T K6 K/ v9 i $ L# Y9 t1 [2 d! } u6 M) U不过话说回来,管理界对 CMV 的问题的要求,确实比很多其他的社会科学为高。我不知道这是不是好事。我个人对 CMV 的统计处理方法很有保留。最大的问题是现在连同源所产生的问题都不知道,何来谈同源方差的 “假设” 和统计控制呢?。就算现在的 longitudianl measure (就是 X 是 time 1, M 是 time 2, Y 是 time3 的测量) 我觉得都不是一个好的方法。如果一定要同源的话,以我有限的统计知识,我会比较接受用 longitudinal data, 在从其中 partial out rater effect (比如是 latent growth model 等方法)。作者: 蚊子1989 时间: 2012-6-9 23:52