Surveying for “Artifacts”: The Susceptibility of the OCB–Performance Evaluation Relationship to Common Rater, Item, and Measurement Context Effects

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Despite the increased attention paid to biases attributable to common method variance (CMV) over the past 50 years, researchers have only recently begun to systematically examine the effect of specific sources of CMV in previously published empirical studies. Our study contributes to this research by examining the extent to which common rater, item, and measurement context characteristics bias the relationships between organizational citizenship behaviors and performance evaluations using a mixed-effects analytic technique. Results from 173 correlations reported in 81 empirical studies (N = 31,146) indicate that even after controlling for study-level factors, common rater and anchor point number similarity substantially biased the focal correlations. Indeed, these sources of CMV (a) led to estimates that were between 60% and 96% larger when comparing measures obtained from a common rater, versus different raters; (b) led to 39% larger estimates when a common source rated the scales using the same number, versus a different number, of anchor points; and (c) when taken together with other study-level predictors, accounted for over half of the between-study variance in the focal correlations. We discuss the implications for researchers and practitioners and provide recommendations for future research.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles