Abstract
Common method variance (CMV) remains a long-standing conundrum in academic research. More than half a century and thousands of pages after Campbell and Fiske’s (Psychological Bulletin 56: 81–105, 1959) seminal article we are still debating whether CMV is a major problem or an urban legend. In our comment on Chang, van Witteloostuijn, and Eden’s (Journal of International Business Studies 41: 178–184, 2010) article we offer a somewhat contrarian perspective grounded in classical test theory and the recent recognition of uncommon method variance. We comment on emerging data sources and conclude by offering four guidelines that will help reviewers evaluate the extent to which CMV threatens the validity of a study’s findings.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
