4.

10 Common method variance (CMV)

Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, (2003) defined CMV as ‘‘variance that is
attributable to the measurement method rather than to the constructs the measures
represent’’. By using survey-based data, the JIBS editors, Chang, SJ (2010) see CMV as a
potentially serious concern for researchers, especially where the dependent and
independent variables are perceptual and from the same source. Common method variance
(CMV) may be a concern when self-report questionnaires are used to collect data at the
same time from the same participants. When both the dependent and focal explanatory
variables are perceptual measures derived from the same respondent, this concern is
strongest (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986).

Estimating CMV requires identifying the characteristics of methods that contribute to CMV.
Podsakoff et al. (2003) identify four method characteristics that are potential sources of CMV:
source, item characteristics, item constructs and measurement context. Hence, following the
guideline, we refer to classification of four measurement methods employed in the IS
Literature [Adapted from Rai et al. (2002) and Kim and Malhotra (2005)]. In this research,
we used perceptually anchored method, items that capture responses generally on "Agree-
Disagree" Likert scales or on semantic differential scales. For an example, "I sorely rely on
information gotten from social media" rated on an "Agree-Disagree" Likert scale.

Reference

1. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & 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.
2. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research:
Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4): 531–544

3. Chang, SJ., van Witteloostuijn, A. & Eden, L. J Int Bus Stud (2010) . From the
Editors: Common method variance in international business research.Journal of
International Business Studies Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 178–184.

4. Rai, A., Lang, S. S., and Welker, R. B. 2002. "Assessing the Validity of IS Success
Models: An Empirical Test and Theore tical Validity," Information Systems Research
(13:1), pp. 50-69.
5. Kim, S. S., and Malhotra, N. K. 2005. "Predicting System Usage from Intention and
Past Use: Scale Issues in the Predictors," Decision Sciences (36:1), pp. 187-196.