Sammenlign metoder

	Common Method Bias Remedies	Organizational Identification Scale
Fagfelt	Organisasjonsatferd	Organisasjonsatferd
Familie	Process / pipeline	Latent structure
Opprinnelsesår	2003	1992
Opphavsperson	Philip Podsakoff, Scott MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee & Nathan Podsakoff; Michael Lindell & David Whitney	Fred Mael & Blake E. Ashforth
Type	Procedural and statistical remedies for method-induced bias	Unidimensional latent-construct measurement model
Opprinnelig kilde	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.	Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103-123.
Alias	Common Method Variance Remedies, CMV Controls, Harman's Single-Factor Test, Marker Variable Technique	Mael and Ashforth Identification Scale, OID Scale, Organizational Identification Questionnaire, Social-Identity Organizational Identification Measure
Relaterte	3	3
Sammendrag	Common method bias remedies are the procedural and statistical tools researchers use to detect and reduce the spurious covariance that arises when constructs are measured with the same method — typically a single self-report survey. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff's 2003 review crystallized the problem, cataloguing the many sources of method bias and the design and analysis safeguards available, and it became the field's reference point. Because the same respondent, rating scale, and occasion can inflate correlations among unrelated constructs, method variance can manufacture or distort relationships that researchers then mistake for substance. The remedies fall into two families: procedural design choices that prevent method variance from entering the data, and statistical techniques that diagnose or partial it out afterward. Lindell and Whitney's marker-variable approach and Williams, Hartman, and Cavazotte's confirmatory-factor-analysis marker technique are the leading statistical correctives. Used together, these remedies make method bias a problem to be designed against and tested for rather than assumed away.	The Organizational Identification Scale is Mael and Ashforth's widely used measure of the extent to which people define themselves in terms of their organizational membership. It rests on the social-identity reformulation of identification that Ashforth and Mael advanced in their 1989 Academy of Management Review article, which defined organizational identification as a perceived oneness with an organization and the experience of its successes and failures as one's own. Their 1992 Journal of Organizational Behavior study, using alumni of a college, introduced and validated a concise self-report scale and tested a model of its antecedents and consequences. The scale treats identification as a self-definitional, cognitive construct distinct from organizational commitment, which is more attitudinal and exchange-based. Validated as essentially unidimensional, the instrument links organizational antecedents such as distinctiveness and prestige to outcomes such as support and advocacy. It became the standard measure of organizational identification in the field.