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

A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment

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

Chapter 1. Introduction Chapter 2. Managerial Work Chapter 3. Effective Leadership Behavior Chapter 4. Leading Change and Innovation Chapter 5. Participative Leadership and Empowerment Chapter 6. Leadership Traits and Skills Chapter 7. Contingency Theories and Adaptive Leadership Chapter 8. Power and Influence Tactics Chapter 9. Dyadic Relations and Followers Chapter 10. Leadership in Groups and Teams Chapter 11. Strategic Leadership in Organizations Chapter 12. Charismatic and Transformational Leadership Chapter 13. Ethical, Servant, Spiritual, and Authentic Leadership Chapter 14. Cross-cultural Leadership and Diversity Chapter 15. Developing Leadership Skills Chapter 16. Overview and Integration

/pdf/leadership-in-organizations-7uklakdk5o.pdf

Leadership in Organizations

Expanding the criterion domain to include organizational citizenship behavior: Implications for employee selection.

Despite the intuitive appeal of Kerr & Jermier's (1978) ‘substitutes for leadership’ constructs, recent studies have provided only mixed support for this conceptualization of leadership. Perhaps the most compelling reason for the mixed findings is the lack of empirical construct validity of the substitutes subscales themselves. Internal consistency reliabilities are presented from 11 samples which indicate that over two-thirds (nine) of the 13 subscales have a median reliability below 0.62. Following this, preliminary factor analyses of the Substitutes for Leadership Scales were conducted in five samples, and an iterative ‘item trimming’ procedure was then undertaken to improve the reliability and conceptual integrity of the original subscales. Even though a total of eight items was dropped from four of the subscales, the reliabilities of those scales which were modified generally stayed the same, and the factor structure was reduced from 16–18 factors for the original scale to 14–15 factors for the reduced scale. In addition, the discriminant validity of the revised version of the substitutes measures and their relationships with Crowne & Marlowe's (1964) social desirability measure were assessed. Suggestions for further improving the construct validity of the Substitutes Scale are then discussed.

A preliminary analysis of the construct validity of Kerr & Jermier's ‘Substitutes for Leadership’ Scales

It has been more than 40 years since Blalock (1964) noted thedistinction between what he called “cause” (formative) and“effect” (reflective) indicators of latent variables, and threedecades since the academic literature recognized that someSEM measurement models don’t fit classical test theory’sassumptions about the direction of causality of the relation-ships between constructs and their indicators (Bagozzi 1981;Fornell and Bookstein 1982). Since that time, interest inmodeling constructs with formative indicators has signi-ficantly increased in the business, social science, and informa-tion systems literatures (e.g., Bollen 2007; Cenfetelli andBassellier 2009; Diamantopoulos and Papadopoulos 2010;Diamantopoulos et al. 2008; Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer2001; Edwards and Bagozzi, 2000; Jarvis et. al. 2003; Lawand Wong 1999; MacKenzie et al. 2005; Marakas et al. 2007;Petter et al. 2007), and an increasing number of academicstudies are incorporating these types of measurement modelsin their substantive investigations. However, recentlyresearchers in a variety of disciplines (Franke et al. 2008;Howell et al. 2007; Kim et al. 2010) have raised questionssurrounding the correct conceptualization and operationa-lization of formative indicator measurement models.

The negative consequences of measurement model misspecification: a response to Aguirre-Urreta and Marakas

Despite the widespread belief that empirical studies that are firmly grounded in theory and use valid measures of their focal constructs are more critical to the advancement of science than studies that do not possess these attributes, it is only recently that this belief has begun to be empirically tested. Unfortunately, most of the tests that have been conducted have some limitations. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the effects that an article's theoretical contribution, the rigor of its scale validation procedures, and the quality of the journal in which it is published have on its impact in the field of entrepreneurship. Using expectancy theory as a conceptual framework, we develop and test our hypotheses in a sample of 88 entrepreneurship articles that reported scale development and validation evidence. Our hypotheses were supported in that the results showed that an article's theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, and journal quality significantly predicted the number of citations the article received, even after controlling for article age- and author-related variables. When taken together, the article characteristics and control variables accounted for 66 percent of the variance in article citations. Implications of these findings for researchers in the field of entrepreneurship are discussed. Copyright © 2011 Strategic Management Society.

Effects of theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, and journal quality, on the impact of scale development articles in the field of entrepreneurship

Une revue de la litterature suggere que peu d'etudes utilisent des modeles de mesure avec indicateurs formatifs alors meme qu'elles le devraient. L'objectif de cette recherche est donc de : (a) discuter de la distinction entre modeles de mesure formatifs et reflexifs, (b) developper un ensemble de criteres conceptuels qui peuvent etre utilises pour determiner si un construit doit etre modelise comme ayant des indicateurs formatifs ou reflexifs, (c) etablir une revue de la litterature en marketing afin d'obtenir une estimation de l'etendue des erreurs de specification des modeles dans le champ de recherche, (d) estimer l'ampleur avec laquelle la specification erronee d'un modele de mesure biaise les estimations des relations entre les construits, par l'utilisation d'une simulation Monte Carlo, et (e) fournir des recommandations pour modeliser des construits ayant des indicateurs formatifs.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/40589402.pdf

Un examen critique des indicateurs de construit et des erreurs de spécification des modèles de mesure dans la recherche en marketing et en comportement du consommateur

Philip M. Podsakoff

Papers

Expanding the criterion domain to include organizational citizenship behavior: Implications for employee selection.

A preliminary analysis of the construct validity of Kerr & Jermier's ‘Substitutes for Leadership’ Scales

The negative consequences of measurement model misspecification: a response to Aguirre-Urreta and Marakas

Effects of theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, and journal quality, on the impact of scale development articles in the field of entrepreneurship

Un examen critique des indicateurs de construit et des erreurs de spécification des modèles de mesure dans la recherche en marketing et en comportement du consommateur