資料載入處理中...
臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統
:::
網站導覽
國圖首頁
聯絡我們
操作說明
English
行動版
(3.141.35.60)
登入
字型:
**字體大小變更功能,需開啟瀏覽器的JAVASCRIPT,如您的瀏覽器不支援,
IE6請利用鍵盤按住ALT鍵 + V → X → (G)最大(L)較大(M)中(S)較小(A)小,來選擇適合您的文字大小,
如為IE7以上、Firefoxy或Chrome瀏覽器則可利用鍵盤 Ctrl + (+)放大 (-)縮小來改變字型大小。
來源文獻查詢
引文查詢
瀏覽查詢
作者權威檔
引用/點閱統計
我的研究室
資料庫說明
相關網站
來源文獻查詢
/
簡易查詢
/
查詢結果列表
/
詳目列表
:::
詳目顯示
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆
/1
頁
來源文獻資料
摘要
外文摘要
引文資料
題名:
管理研究中的共同方法變異:問題本質、影響、測試和補救
書刊名:
管理學報
作者:
彭台光
/
高月慈
/
林鉦棽
作者(外文):
Peng, T. K.
/
Kao, Y. T.
/
Lin, Cheng-chen
出版日期:
2006
卷期:
23:1
頁次:
頁77-98
主題關鍵詞:
共同方法變異
;
研究方法
;
構念效度
;
同源偏差
;
Common method variance
;
Research method
;
Construct validity
;
Same source bias
原始連結:
連回原系統網址
相關次數:
被引用次數:期刊(
353
) 博士論文(
109
) 專書(
2
) 專書論文(
2
)
排除自我引用:
353
共同引用:
85
點閱:235
本研究的目的在探討共同方法變異(common method variance, CMV)的本質及其對構念效度與研究結果的影響,並論述此問題的解決之道,進而比較國內、外管理學界對這議題重視的程度。本文以國內、外各四種主要的管理期刊從1998年至2003年,國外0163篇文章中,無CMV或部分CMV的比率分別為60.71%、35.13%,有CMV的只有4.13%,而國內237篇文章中,無CMV僅有7.59%,部分CMV約為8.44%,有CMV佔了83.97%。由而可知,在此議題上,我們尚有很大的努力空間。對於CMV的偵測、處理以及研究設計上因應之道,本文一一提出建議並加以評述,希冀由此引起國內學者對此問題的重視。
以文找文
In the family of management related research, scholars try to understand phenomena in and around organizations, such as employees' perceived justice, patterns of intra-organizational interactions, network relationships of organizations, and consumer responses to brand names. In pursuing these enquiries, they often use self-report instruments to collect data from research subjects. If only one type of survey questionnaire is administered to a single source of respondents and the questionnaire contains both the antecedents and outcome variables, then it is very likely that this research suffers a methodological problem termed common method variance (CMV). CMV will inadequately inflate the relationship between variables, resulting in an increase of statistical significance. Based on such significance, hypothesis is often misjudged as being supported and thus Type I error occurs. Therefore, CMV is regarded as an obvious threat to internal validity. The purpose of this study is to appeal for readers' attention to the CMV problem and to handle it more effectively in future research programs. To begin with, we articulate what CMV is as well as its causes and impacts. Results from psychometric measurement can be dichotomized as random error variance and systematic variance. This later category in turn consists of two parts: trait variance and method variance (i.e., CMV). Trait variance is the variance reflecting the trait (i.e., construct) measured from a particular sample. Hence, the larger the trait variance is, the higher the construct validity of the particular trait can be. In contrast, both random error variance and method variance are measurement errors. They differ in the fact that method variance, like trait variance, is systematic. Method variance consistently goes along with trait variance and is therefore difficult to detect. Logically, CMV is the part of variance that is totally undesirable and needs to be minimized. Major causes of CMV include the use of same methods (e.g., self-report questionnaire), collecting data from a single source and/or at the same time, respondents' response set, consistency motive, and psychological state (e.g., social desirability, negative affectivity), and other contaminating factors. CMV imposes a negative impact on construct validity, which may lead to misleading statistical significance and eventually inadequate accumulation of management knowledge. In the second section, we discuss and comment on the statistical and procedural techniques designed to attenuate or to avoid the problem. The statistical techniques are Harman's one-factor test, partial correlation procedure, and multiple method factors, among others. The procedural remedies include scale item trimming, temporal, proximal, psychological, or methodological separation of measurement, and protecting respondent anonymity. The procedural techniques are essentially related to research design, while the statistical ones are post hoc actions taken after data collection. It is obvious that the former is much more effective than the latter. In the section that follows, we present the results of an extensive review and a comparison we conducted involving a total of 1596 papers in four prestigious Chinese journals issued in Taiwan during 1998-2003 and other four major journals published in English of the same time period. The Chinese periodicals selected are Journal of Management, Management Review, NSYSU Management Review, and NTU Management Review, while those in English are Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Management, and Journal of Organizational Behavior. Our focus was empirical studies that are quantitative in nature. Therefore, non-empirical research and empirical studies that are qualitative were not included. Furthermore, we decided not to examine studies adopting experiment methods because such techniques may be effective in avoiding CMV problems as independent variables are deliberately controlled. Our investigation yielded interesting findings. Of the 871 studies in English during 1998-2003, there are 60.74% of them without CMV, 35.13% with partial CMV, and only 4.13% plagued with CMV. In contrast, of the 237 Chinese papers reviewed, the percentages of those without, with partial, and with CMV are 7.59%, 8.44%, and 83.97%, respectively. These results suggest that the majority of the Chinese papers did not handle or even recognize the CMV problem appropriately. In the conclusion, we contend that a sound survey design is much better than 10 fancy statistical remedies and that a careful experimental design should effectively handle the CMV problems. There is room for improvement for our management community to do research without CMV and, eventually, to accumulate our knowledge more accurately.
以文找文
期刊論文
1.
Crampton, S. M.、Wanger, J. A. III(1994)。Percept-percept Inflation in Microorganizational Research: An Investigation of Prevalence and Effect。Journal of Applied Psychology,79(1),67-76。
2.
Kemery, E. R.、Dunlap, W. P.(1986)。Partialling Factor Scores Does not Control Method Variance: A Reply to Podsakoff and Todor。Journal of Management,12(4),525-530。
3.
Cote, J. A.、Buckley, M. R.(1988)。Measurement Error and Theory Testing in Consumer Research: An Illustration of the Importance of Construct Validation。Journal of Consumer Research,14,579-582。
4.
Blau, G.(1999)。Early-career Job Factors Influencing the Professional Commitment of Medical Technology。Academy of Management Journal,42,674-686。
5.
Cote, J. A.、Buckley, M. R.(1987)。Estimating trait, method, and error variance: Generalizing across seventy construct validation studies。Journal of Marketing Research,24(3),315-319。
6.
Doty, D. H.、Glick, W. H.(1998)。Common Methods Bias: Does Common Methods Variance Really Bias Results?。Organizational Research Methods,1(4),374-406。
7.
Baltes, B. B.、Bauer, C. C.、Bajdo, L. M.、Parker, C. P.(2002)。The Use of Multitrait-multimethod Data for Detecting Nonlinear Relationships: The Cause of Psychological Climate and Job Satisfaction。Journal of Business and Psychology,17(1),3-17。
8.
Schmitt, N.(1994)。Method bias: The importance of theory and measurement。Journal of Organizational Behavior,15(5),393-398。
9.
Williams, L. J.、Anderson, S. E.(1994)。An alternative approach to method effects by using latent-variable models: Applications in organizational behavior research。Journal of applied psychology,79(3),323-331。
10.
Campbell, Donald T.、Fiske, Donald W.(1959)。Convergent and Discriminant Validation by Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix。Psychological Bulletin,56(2),81-105。
11.
鄭伯壎、樊景立、張慧芳、徐瑋伶(20021200)。Guanxi, Zhongcheng, Competence, and Managerial Behavior in the Chinese Context。中華心理學刊,44(2),151-166。
延伸查詢
12.
Kark, R.、Shamir, B. B.、Chen, G.(2003)。The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency。Journal of Applied Psychology,88(2),246-255。
13.
van der Vegt, Gerben S.、van de Vliert, Evert、Oosterhof, Aad(2003)。Informational Dissimilarity and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Role of Intrateam Interdependence and Team Identification。Academy of Management Journal,46(6),715-727。
14.
黃家齊(20020600)。組織公正與組織公民行為--認知型與情感型信任的中介效果。臺大管理論叢,12(2),107-141。
延伸查詢
15.
黃品全(20031000)。顧客接觸人員與上司、同事關係對賦能及服務工作之影響--社會交換的觀點。管理評論,22(4),57-80。
延伸查詢
16.
Avolio, Bruce J.、Yammarino, Francis J.、Bass, Bernard M.(1991)。Identifying common methods variance with data collected from a single source: An unresolved sticky issue。Journal of Management,17(3),571-587。
17.
Podsakoff, Philip M.、Organ, Dennis W.(1986)。Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects。Journal of Management,12(4),531-544。
18.
Podsakoff, Philip M.、MacKenzie, Scott B.、Lee, Jeong-Yeon、Podsakoff, Nathan 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。
19.
Williams, L. J.、Brown, B. K.(1994)。Method Variance in Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Research: Effects on Correlations, Path Coefficients, and Hypothesis Testing。Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,57(2),185-209。
20.
Birnbaum, P. H.、Farh, J. L.、Wong, G. Y. Y.(1986)。The Job Characteristics Model in Hong Kong。Journal of Applied Psychology,71,598-605。
21.
Dionne, S. D.、Yammarino, F. J.、Atwater, L. E.、James, L. R.(2002)。Neutralizing Substitutes for Leadership Theory: Leadership Effects and Common-source Bias。Journal of Applied Psychology,87(3),453-464。
22.
Kirk, R. E.(2001)。Promoting Good Statistical Practice: Some Suggestions。Educational and Psychological Measurement,61(2),213-218。
23.
林鉦棽、葉紹琪(1997)。求職強度、資訊真實性與社會化之關係-自尊感之共同方法變異效果的探討。中山管理評論,5(4),923-942。
延伸查詢
24.
Parker, C. P.(1999)。A Test of Alternative Hierarchical Models of Psychological Climate: PCg, Satisfaction, or Common Method Variances?。Organizational Research Methods,2(3),257-274。
25.
Payne, R. L.(2000)。Comments on 'Why Negative Affectivity Should not Be Controlled in Job Stress Research: Don't Throw Out the Baby with the Bath Water'。Journal of Organizational Behavior,21,97-99。
26.
Spector, P. E.、Zapf, D.、Chen, P. Y.、Frese, M.(2000)。Why Negative Affectivity Should Not Be Controlled in Job Stress Research: Don't Throw Out the Baby with the Bath Water。Journal of Organizational Behavior,21,79-95。
27.
Werner, S.(2002)。Recent Developments in International Management Research: A Review of 20 Top Management Journals。Journal of Management,28(3),277-305。
圖書
1.
Pfeffer, J.(1997)。New directions for organization theory: Problems and prospects。New York:Oxford University Press。
2.
Schwab, Donald P.(2005)。Research methods for organizational studies。Lawrence Erlbaum Associates。
3.
Carmines, E. G.、Zeller, R. A.(1979)。Reliability and Validity Assessment。Sage Publications。
4.
Cohen, Jacob、Cohen, Patricia、West, Stephen G.、Aiken, Leona S.(2003)。Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences。Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.。
圖書論文
1.
Bliese, P. D.(2000)。Within-Group Agreement, Non-Independence, and Reliability: Impplication for Data Aggregation and Analysis。Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and Net Directions。San Francisco, California:Jossey-Bass。
2.
Spector, P. E.、Brannick, M. T.(1995)。The nature and effects of method variance in organizational research。International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology。Wiley。
3.
Sackett, P. R.、Larson, J. R. Jr.(1990)。Research strategies and tactics in industrial and organizational psychology。Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology。Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press。
推文
當script無法執行時可按︰
推文
推薦
當script無法執行時可按︰
推薦
引用網址
當script無法執行時可按︰
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
當script無法執行時可按︰
引用嵌入語法
轉寄
當script無法執行時可按︰
轉寄
top
:::
相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱
1.
國際觀光旅館職場友誼與工作表現關係之探討--以卓越能力商數為中介變項
2.
中高齡職涯未來時間觀、職場成功老化和就業力之關係--探討工作要求與資源的調節式中介作用
3.
居服員留任傾向之研究
4.
國中生所知覺到的教師自主支持、自我效能、任務價值對學習投入之影響
5.
病患不文明行為對情緒調節的影響:壓力心態與顧客導向的調節式中介模式
6.
重度工作投資與工作倦怠:健康促進與心理資本扮演之調節角色
7.
就事論事或將心比心?顧客不當對待與員工身心壓力的情緒歷程:壓力源評估與同理心特質的調節效果
8.
越南臺商外派人員之領導部屬交換對職場偏差行為之影響--以外在工作價值與工作不安全感為調節變項
9.
學校運動教練工作不安全感、組織認同、工作倦怠與工作退縮行為:工作要求-資源模式之觀點
10.
景觀餐廳顧客認知價值對行為意圖與額外願付價格之影響
11.
後新冠肺炎(COVID-19)時代,郵輪產業美容美體SPA館主管不同之轉換型領導,對人格特質與組織承諾對其調節效果研究
12.
若即若離?探索TSSCI商管社群網絡結構及知識活動--編輯群重疊的策略觀點
13.
以人境適配觀點探討運動實習生之主管安全支持與工作表現之關係
14.
知覺教育訓練成效與離職傾向關係之調節式中介模式:心理契約觀點
15.
專業能力、服務品質對顧客信任及交叉購買意願之影響--以電話行銷為例
1.
每日下班後活動的前因、後果及其適用情境之研究
2.
中國大陸地區不同亞群農村留守兒童復原歷程
3.
差序式領導與自己人部屬的角色:多層次分析觀點
4.
服務業員工創新表現之初探:探討其關鍵影響因素與干擾效果
5.
主管領導方式與部屬知覺主管不當監督關係之研究
6.
數位廣告創意策略之溝通效果研究
7.
國民小學組織正義、組織公民行為與競爭優勢關係之研究:以領導者 與部屬交換關係為調節效果
8.
智慧資本與環境偵測對組織學習與組織控制效果之影響--以政府部門為例
9.
學校不當督導與非志願性公民行為關係之研究-中介與調節效果的探討
10.
網路互動性、投入感、信任、購買意願與口碑之關聯性研究:調節中介模型
11.
國民中小學校人事人員情緒勞務、職場友誼以及組織認同關係之研究
12.
公部門團隊成員行動化知識分享行為之研究-科技信任與雙元性知識分享之調節效果
13.
大學行政人員知覺校長正向領導、心理資本、敬業奉獻與工作效能關係之研究
14.
競爭氣候如何燃起員工績效?檢驗競爭氣候與競爭特質交互對工作重塑、工作敬業與工作績效的關係
15.
從領隊觀點與顧客觀點解讀領隊情緒智力之影響
1.
休閒管理與概論:休閒活動設計規劃個案
2.
校長競值領導效能研究 : 理論、指標與衡量
3.
家長式領導 : 模式與證據
4.
華人領導 : 理論與實際
5.
成就動機對組織公民行為的影響--以領導者和部屬交換關係和團隊成員交換關係為調節效果
6.
臺港兩地工作者之工作壓力歷程--工作動機及因應策略之調節作用
7.
整合分析
8.
組織忠誠
9.
差序式領導
10.
組織領導
11.
組織忠誠、組織承諾、及組織公民行為
12.
台灣的組織行為研究 : 過去、現在及未來
無相關著作
1.
組織因素、組織成員整體創造性與組織創新之關係
2.
影響國小學生學業成就的因果機制--以臺北市和臺東縣作比較
3.
從「課程統整」的概念評九年一貫課程
4.
九年一貫新課程綱要修訂的背景及內涵
5.
中國人親子關係的內涵與功能:以大學生為例
6.
國民小學學校效能評鑑指標與權重體系之建構
7.
臺灣日治時期的司法改革 (下)
8.
補習教育、文化資本與教育取得
9.
差序格局與華人組織行為
10.
紮根理論研究法--淵源、原則、技術與涵義
11.
國小教師教室管理評鑑系統之研究
12.
薪酬公平、程序公正與組織承諾、組織公民行為關係之研究
13.
顏氏家訓集解訂補
QR Code