Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 16 items for :

  • "common method variance" x
Clear All
Restricted access

Derwin K.C. Chan, Andreas Ivarsson, Andreas Stenling, Sophie X. Yang, Nikos L.D. Chatzisarantis and Martin S. Hagger

Consistency tendency is characterized by the propensity for participants responding to subsequent items in a survey consistent with their responses to previous items. This method effect might contaminate the results of sport psychology surveys using cross-sectional design. We present a randomized controlled crossover study examining the effect of consistency tendency on the motivational pathway (i.e., autonomy support → autonomous motivation → intention) of self-determination theory in the context of sport injury prevention. Athletes from Sweden (N = 341) responded to the survey printed in either low interitem distance (IID; consistency tendency likely) or high IID (consistency tendency suppressed) on two separate occasions, with a one-week interim period. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups, and they received the survey of different IID at each occasion. Bayesian structural equation modeling showed that low IID condition had stronger parameter estimates than high IID condition, but the differences were not statistically significant.

Restricted access

Colin D. McLaren and Kevin S. Spink

performance vis-à-vis winning games. Data Analysis Prior to the main analysis, data were screened for univariate and multivariate normality, multicollinearity, homoscedasticity, and common method variance. To address the study hypotheses, a hierarchical multiple regression was used to examine whether member

Restricted access

Christopher R. Hill, Deborah L. Feltz, Stephen Samendinger and Karin A. Pfeiffer

reason that the effect size could vary when examining the two different PA measurement techniques is common method variance. Common method variance occurs when variance in the effect of interest is attributable to the method by which the data are collected instead of the underlying effect of interest

Restricted access

Melissa N. Galea Holmes, John A. Weinman and Lindsay M. Bearne

similar to that of the construct measures; however, this comes with a risk of inflating associations (i.e., common method variance; Kaiser, Schultz, & Scheuthle, 2007 ). The 6MWD is a validated, clinically relevant measure of walking capacity in people with IC ( McDermott et al., 2008 ), and it provides

Restricted access

Yong Jae Ko, Yonghwan Chang, Wonseok Jang, Michael Sagas and John Otto Spengler

and spectating intention 0.32 .04 <.001 <.001 Note. With and without the latent common methods variance factor in the model. We also tested the effect of common method bias ( Bagozzi & Yi, 1990 ; Campbell & Fiske, 1959 ) using the unmeasured latent method factor technique ( Podsakoff, MacKenzie

Restricted access

Jacqueline McDowell, Yung-Kuei Huang and Arran Caza

Amos 22 (Armonk, NY). As the data in the current study were collected from self-reports, Harman’s single-factor test ( Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003 ; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986 ) was conducted to diagnose common method variance using both exploratory factor analysis and CFA procedures

Restricted access

Bradley J. Baker, Jeremy S. Jordan and Daniel C. Funk

satisfaction ( Agustin & Singh, 2005 ; Yoshida et al., 2015 ). When generating data for both dependent and independent variables from the same source at the same time, common method variance can bias results, spuriously increasing apparent correlations between variables ( Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee

Restricted access

Jasmin C. Hutchinson, Zachary Zenko, Sam Santich and Paul C. Dalton

 mm EVS using a pencil. EVS scores range from −100 to 100, corresponding to the distance in millimeters from the neutral 0 point in the unpleasant and pleasant directions, respectively. The use of a different measurement format from that of the FS served to minimize common method variance ( Zenko et

Restricted access

Laura J. Burton, Jon Welty Peachey and Janelle E. Wells

our data were better suited for our proposed measurement model in comparison with a single-factor model. Further, Spector (2006) concluded issues caused by common method variance can be overstated and are seldom serious enough to invalidate findings. Just the same, future research should involve a

Restricted access

Nina Verma, Robert C. Eklund, Calum A. Arthur, Timothy C. Howle and Ann-Marie Gibson

behaviors exhibit differential relationships with the outcomes variables under consideration. Although we took steps to limit the impact of common method variance by using a prospective design where the outcome variables were collected 1 week after the independent variables, some of the pathways in our