← Every exhibit

Table Figure 1 From the research bench

The common-method-bias release sequence

Release a method-sensitive claim only after construct, collection method, remedy, assessment, and remaining risk are visible.

Release stepRequired inputPermitted statementStop signal
Define the constructConstruct, dimensions, indicators, and intended relation“This measure is intended to represent this construct.”A method test is used to repair an undefined construct.
Describe the methodRespondent, source, time, mode, wording, and response context“These features are shared or separated in the design.”The shared method is unnamed.
Protect procedurallyOrdering, source separation, temporal separation, wording, or other design choice“This protection addresses this specified risk.”A remedy is listed without the risk it targets.
Assess statisticallyDeclared model, test, assumptions, and sensitivity“This assessment speaks to this residual question.”One post hoc test is treated as proof of no bias.
Release the claimResult, rival explanation, and unresolved uncertainty“This is the strongest sentence supported here.”A method result is turned into a universal causal conclusion.

Swipe or scroll horizontally if the table is wider than your screen.

Cite Embed

Reference & Evidence

Source: Author's release framework grounded in Podsakoff et al. (2024), Spector (2006), and MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Podsakoff (2011). The prompts are synthetic and do not diagnose a dataset.

Each line is a claim from the register this journal publishes against, resolved from the register at build time.

  • A The review's own four-part structure: "we explain the harmful effects of CMB (why it is bad)", then "there are multiple sources of CMB, several of which are likely to be present in any study", then "the conditions under which CMB is likely to occur are relatively widespread, and fourth, we explain why CMB is not easy to fix" Podsakoff et al. (2024) · POD24-C1
  • A Multiple sources, and more than one likely at once: "there are multiple sources of CMB, several of which are likely to be present in any study" Podsakoff et al. (2024) · POD24-C2
  • A And no single post hoc test is the remedy, because "the conditions under which CMB is likely to occur are relatively widespread, and fourth, we explain why CMB is not easy to fix" Podsakoff et al. (2024) · POD24-C3
  • A The paper's title is its claim: "Method Variance in Organizational Research: Truth or Urban Legend?", and it names the belief it disputes, that "Everything Measured With the Same Method Shares CMV" Spector. (2006) · SPE06-C1
  • A The evidential basis for disputing it: "The reason this is legend is because there are few scientific data to unequivocally support this view and there are data to refute it" Spector. (2006) · SPE06-C2
  • A So the argument is for design-sensitive reasoning rather than a blanket verdict: "The reason this is legend is because there are few scientific data to unequivocally support this view and there are data to refute it" Spector. (2006) · SPE06-C3
  • A The paper's own purpose: "to integrate new and existing techniques into a comprehensive set of recommendations that can be used to give researchers in mis and the behavioral sciences a framework for developing valid measures" MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Podsakoff. (2011) · MCK11-C1
  • A The failure it targets: techniques that "provide evidence that the set of items used to represent the focal construct actually measures what it purports to measure" are underused MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Podsakoff. (2011) · MCK11-C2
  • A A sequence, not a checklist: "this process involves a series of steps beginning with construct conceptualization or reconceptualization of an existing construct" and ending in norms for the scale MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Podsakoff. (2011) · MCK11-C3

Grades: A, verified against the printed page of the primary source · B, primary source, text layer only · C, authoritative secondary · D, reported.

Related exhibits