Common Method Variance and Specification Errors: A Practical Approach to Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to demonstrate how examining the bivariate correlations between items in self-report measures can assist in differentiating between possible common method variance vs. model specification errors. Specifically, social desirability was viewed as either a possible source of common method variance or as a theoretically meaningful construct that should be included in the model of interest (i.e., a specification error). In the first instance, LISREL was used, and the level of correlation between measures of social desirability and measures of the five constructs of interest was manipulated. These results provided some insight as to when one needs to be concerned about the possible "common variance effects" on the structural model. In the second instance, the correlations between measures of social desirability and the measures of only two constructs of interest were again manipulated. These analyses illustrated the point at which the omission of social desirability as a theoretically relevant variable began to result in a poor fit of the structural model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.244 | 0.646 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".