IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v52y2006i12p1865-1883.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Common Method Variance in IS Research: A Comparison of Alternative Approaches and a Reanalysis of Past Research

Author

Listed:
  • Naresh K. Malhotra

    (College of Management, Georgia Institute of Technology, 800 West Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30332)

  • Sung S. Kim

    (School of Business, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 975 University Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin 53706)

  • Ashutosh Patil

    (College of Management, Georgia Institute of Technology, 800 West Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30332)

Abstract

Despite recurring concerns about common method variance (CMV) in survey research, the information systems (IS) community remains largely uncertain of the extent of such potential biases. To address this uncertainty, this paper attempts to systematically examine the impact of CMV on the inferences drawn from survey research in the IS area. First, we describe the available approaches for assessing CMV and conduct an empirical study to compare them. From an actual survey involving 227 respondents, we find that although CMV is present in the research areas examined, such biases are not substantial. The results also suggest that few differences exist between the relatively new marker-variable technique and other well-established conventional tools in terms of their ability to detect CMV. Accordingly, the marker-variable technique was employed to infer the effect of CMV on correlations from previously published studies. Our findings, based on the reanalysis of 216 correlations, suggest that the inflated correlation caused by CMV may be expected to be on the order of 0.10 or less, and most of the originally significant correlations remain significant even after controlling for CMV. Finally, by extending the marker-variable technique, we examined the effect of CMV on structural relationships in past literature. Our reanalysis reveals that contrary to the concerns of some skeptics, CMV-adjusted structural relationships not only remain largely significant but also are not statistically differentiable from uncorrected estimates. In summary, this comprehensive and systematic analysis offers initial evidence that (1) the marker-variable technique can serve as a convenient, yet effective, tool for accounting for CMV, and (2) common method biases in the IS domain are not as serious as those found in other disciplines.

Suggested Citation

  • Naresh K. Malhotra & Sung S. Kim & Ashutosh Patil, 2006. "Common Method Variance in IS Research: A Comparison of Alternative Approaches and a Reanalysis of Past Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(12), pages 1865-1883, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:52:y:2006:i:12:p:1865-1883
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0597
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0597
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0597?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Williams, Larry J. & Brown, Barbara 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, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 185-209, February.
    2. Viswanath Venkatesh, 2000. "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 342-365, December.
    3. Ellen M. Hufnagel & Christopher Conca, 1994. "User Response Data: The Potential for Errors and Biases," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 48-73, March.
    4. Venkatesh, Viswanath & Morris, Michael G. & Ackerman, Phillip L., 2000. "A Longitudinal Field Investigation of Gender Differences in Individual Technology Adoption Decision-Making Processes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 33-60, September.
    5. Paul Chwelos & Izak Benbasat & Albert S. Dexter, 2001. "Research Report: Empirical Test of an EDI Adoption Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 304-321, September.
    6. O'Guinn, Thomas C & Faber, Ronald J, 1989. "Compulsive Buying: A Phenomenological Exploration," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(2), pages 147-157, September.
    7. Fred D. Davis & Richard P. Bagozzi & Paul R. Warshaw, 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 982-1003, August.
    8. Marios Koufaris, 2002. "Applying the Technology Acceptance Model and Flow Theory to Online Consumer Behavior," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(2), pages 205-223, June.
    9. Gary C. Moore & Izak Benbasat, 1991. "Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 192-222, September.
    10. Bernadette Szajna, 1996. "Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(1), pages 85-92, January.
    11. Sung S. Kim & Naresh K. Malhotra, 2005. "A Longitudinal Model of Continued IS Use: An Integrative View of Four Mechanisms Underlying Postadoption Phenomena," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(5), pages 741-755, May.
    12. Cote, Joseph A & Buckley, M Ronald, 1988. "Measurement Error and Theory Testing in Consumer Research: An Illustration of the Importance of Construct Validation," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 14(4), pages 579-582, March.
    13. Christopher R. Plouffe & John S. Hulland & Mark Vandenbosch, 2001. "Research Report: Richness Versus Parsimony in Modeling Technology Adoption Decisions—Understanding Merchant Adoption of a Smart Card-Based Payment System," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 208-222, June.
    14. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    15. Segars, A. H., 1997. "Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: a paradigm and illustration within the context of information systems research," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 107-121, February.
    16. Naresh K. Malhotra & Sung S. Kim & James Agarwal, 2004. "Internet Users' Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The Construct, the Scale, and a Causal Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 336-355, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Agarwal, Reeti & Rastogi, Sanjay & Mehrotra, Ankit, 2009. "Customers’ perspectives regarding e-banking in an emerging economy," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 340-351.
    2. Nan Zhang & Xunhua Guo & Guoqing Chen, 2011. "Why adoption and use behavior of IT/IS cannot last?—two studies in China," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 381-395, July.
    3. Hsiao, Chun Hua & Yang, Chyan, 2011. "The intellectual development of the technology acceptance model: A co-citation analysis," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 128-136.
    4. Sung S. Kim & Naresh K. Malhotra, 2005. "A Longitudinal Model of Continued IS Use: An Integrative View of Four Mechanisms Underlying Postadoption Phenomena," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(5), pages 741-755, May.
    5. Escobar-Rodríguez, Tomás & Bartual-Sopena, Lourdes, 2015. "Impact of cultural factors on attitude toward using ERP systems in public hospitals," Revista de Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 127-137.
    6. S. V. Krishna Kishore & Aloysius Henry Sequeira, 2016. "An Empirical Investigation on Mobile Banking Service Adoption in Rural Karnataka," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(1), pages 21582440166, March.
    7. Lee, Kyootai & Yan, Aihua & Joshi, Kailash, 2011. "Understanding the dynamics of users’ belief in software application adoption," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 160-170.
    8. Gao, Tao (Tony) & Rohm, Andrew J. & Sultan, Fareena & Pagani, Margherita, 2013. "Consumers un-tethered: A three-market empirical study of consumers' mobile marketing acceptance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2536-2544.
    9. Liébana-Cabanillas, Francisco & Marinkovic, Veljko & Ramos de Luna, Iviane & Kalinic, Zoran, 2018. "Predicting the determinants of mobile payment acceptance: A hybrid SEM-neural network approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 117-130.
    10. Irfan Bashir & C. Madhavaiah, 2014. "Determinants of Young Consumers’ Intention to Use Internet Banking Services in India," Vision, , vol. 18(3), pages 153-163, September.
    11. Nripendra P. Rana & Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Banita Lal & Michael D. Williams & Marc Clement, 2017. "Citizens’ adoption of an electronic government system: towards a unified view," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 549-568, June.
    12. Jaeki Song & Yong Jin Kim, 2006. "Social influence process in the acceptance of a virtual community service," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 241-252, July.
    13. Türker, Cansu & Altay, Burak Can & Okumuş, Abdullah, 2022. "Understanding user acceptance of QR code mobile payment systems in Turkey: An extended TAM," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    14. Andrei OGREZEANU, 2015. "Models Of Technology Adoption: An Integrative Approach," Network Intelligence Studies, Romanian Foundation for Business Intelligence, Editorial Department, issue 5, pages 55-67, June.
    15. Wajeeha Aslam & Marija Ham & Imtiaz Arif, 2017. "Consumer Behavioral Intentions towards Mobile Payment Services: An Empirical Analysis in Pakistan," Tržište/Market, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 29(2), pages 161-176.
    16. Cansu TÜRKER & Abdullah OKUMUŞ, 2019. "Mobil Ödeme Kullanımına Yönelik Niyet ve Algıların SosyoDemografik Özelliklere Göre Farklılıklarının İncelenmesi," Istanbul Management Journal, Istanbul University Business School, vol. 0(87), pages 111-139, December.
    17. Haque, Md Ziaul & Qian, Aimin & Hoque, Md Rakibul & Lucky, Suraiea Akter, 2022. "A unified framework for exploring the determinants of online social networks (OSNs) on institutional investors’ capital market investment decision," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    18. Kim, Nooree & Park, Yuri & Lee, Daeho, 2019. "Differences in consumer intention to use on-demand automobile-related services in accordance with the degree of face-to-face interactions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 277-286.
    19. Rese, Alexandra & Ganster, Lena & Baier, Daniel, 2020. "Chatbots in retailers’ customer communication: How to measure their acceptance?," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    20. Nripendra P. Rana & Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Banita Lal & Michael D. Williams & Marc Clement, 0. "Citizens’ adoption of an electronic government system: towards a unified view," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:52:y:2006:i:12:p:1865-1883. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.