Interest in the problem of method biases has a long history in the behavioral sciences. Despite this, a comprehensive summary of the potential sources of method biases and how to control for them does not exist. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to examine the extent to which method biases influence behavioral research results, identify potential sources of method biases, discuss the cognitive processes through which method biases influence responses to measures, evaluate the many different procedural and statistical techniques that can be used to control method biases, and provide recommendations for how to select appropriate procedural and statistical remedies for different types of research settings.

/pdf/common-method-biases-in-behavioral-research-a-critical-53ocysaemj.pdf

Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects

Despite the concern that has been expressed about potential method biases, and the pervasiveness of research settings with the potential to produce them, there is disagreement about whether they really are a problem for researchers in the behavioral sciences. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to explore the current state of knowledge about method biases. First, we explore the meaning of the terms “method” and “method bias” and then we examine whether method biases influence all measures equally. Next, we review the evidence of the effects that method biases have on individual measures and on the covariation between different constructs. Following this, we evaluate the procedural and statistical remedies that have been used to control method biases and provide recommendations for minimizing method bias.

Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It

Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.

/pdf/fostering-implementation-of-health-services-research-4xghpqk7rh.pdf

Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

https://media.terry.uga.edu/socrates/publications/2013/05/Cropanzano__Mitchell_2005_SET_Review_JOM.pdf

Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review

Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.

It is argued here that a category of performance called citizenship behavior is important in organizations and not easily explained by the same incentives that induce entry, conformity to contractual role prescriptions, or high production A study of 422 employees and their supervisors from 58 departments of two banks sought to elaborate on the nature and predictors of citizenship behavior Results suggest that citizenship behavior includes at least two separate dimensions Altruism, or helping specific persons, and Generalized Compliance, a more impersonal form of conscientious citizenship Job satisfaction, as a measure of chronic mood state, showed a direct predictive path to Altruism but not Generalized Compliance Rural background had direct effects on both dimensions of citizenship behavior The predictive power of other variables (e g , leader supportiveness as assessed independently by co-workers, personality measures) varied across the two dimensions of citizenship behavior

Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature and antecedents

A quantitative review of 55 studies supports the conclusion that job attitudes are robust predictors of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). The relationship between job satisfaction and OCB is stronger than that between satisfaction and in-role performance, at least among nonmanagerial and nonprofessional groups. Other attitudinal measures (perceived fairness, organizational commitment, leader supportiveness) correlate with OCB at roughly the same level as satisfaction. Dispositional measures do not correlate nearly as well with OCB (with the exception of conscientiousness). The most notable moderator of these correlations appears to be the use of self- versus other-rating of OCB; self-ratings are associated with higher correlations, suggesting spurious inflation due to common method variance, and much greater variance in correlation. Differences in subject groups and work settings do not account for much variance in the relationships. Implications are noted for theory, practice, and strategies for future research on OCB.

A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior

A measure of a wide array of employee activities on the job was completed by employees' supervisors at two points in time; employees reported their own job satisfaction via the Job Descriptive Index. Implications of relationships much higher than typically found in the job satisfaction–performance literature are discussed.

Dennis W. Organ

Papers

Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects

Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.

Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature and antecedents

A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior

Job Satisfaction and the Good Soldier: The Relationship Between Affect and Employee “Citizenship”