体育管理研究中常用方法方差的文献述评及发展趋势

IF 1.7 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Kalliope Kaltsonoudi, N. Tsigilis, K. Karteroliotis
{"title":"体育管理研究中常用方法方差的文献述评及发展趋势","authors":"Kalliope Kaltsonoudi, N. Tsigilis, K. Karteroliotis","doi":"10.1080/1091367X.2021.1949322","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Common method variance refers to the amount of uncontrolled systematic error leading to biased estimates of scale reliability and validity and to spurious covariance shared among variables due to common method and/or common source employed in survey-based researches. As the extended use of self-report questionnaires is inevitable, numerous studies have provided remedies for this phenomenon. This study primarily aims at the integrative review of four leading sport management journals regarding the way researchers identify and control for common method variance. The results showed that a large proportion (82.4%) of researchers does not deal with the issue of common method variance and only a few articles (15 out of 307) provide sufficient evidence of controlling for common method variance with the use of a combination of procedural and statistical remedies. This article represents an initial attempt to critically approach the integration of the issue of common method variance in sport management research.","PeriodicalId":48577,"journal":{"name":"Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science","volume":"26 1","pages":"103 - 115"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/1091367X.2021.1949322","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Critical Review of the Literature and Current Tendencies of the Common Method Variance in Sport Management Research\",\"authors\":\"Kalliope Kaltsonoudi, N. Tsigilis, K. Karteroliotis\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1091367X.2021.1949322\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Common method variance refers to the amount of uncontrolled systematic error leading to biased estimates of scale reliability and validity and to spurious covariance shared among variables due to common method and/or common source employed in survey-based researches. As the extended use of self-report questionnaires is inevitable, numerous studies have provided remedies for this phenomenon. This study primarily aims at the integrative review of four leading sport management journals regarding the way researchers identify and control for common method variance. The results showed that a large proportion (82.4%) of researchers does not deal with the issue of common method variance and only a few articles (15 out of 307) provide sufficient evidence of controlling for common method variance with the use of a combination of procedural and statistical remedies. This article represents an initial attempt to critically approach the integration of the issue of common method variance in sport management research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48577,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"103 - 115\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/1091367X.2021.1949322\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2021.1949322\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2021.1949322","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

共同方法方差(Common method variance)是指在基于调查的研究中,由于使用了共同的方法和/或来源,导致量表信度和效度估计有偏,以及变量之间存在虚假协方差的非受控系统误差的数量。由于自我报告问卷的广泛使用是不可避免的,许多研究都为这一现象提供了补救措施。本研究的主要目的是对四种主要的体育管理期刊进行综合综述,以了解研究人员识别和控制共同方法方差的方式。结果显示,很大比例(82.4%)的研究者没有处理共同方法方差的问题,只有少数文章(307篇中的15篇)提供了充分的证据,证明通过程序和统计补救措施相结合来控制共同方法方差。本文是对体育管理研究中常用方法差异问题整合的初步尝试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Critical Review of the Literature and Current Tendencies of the Common Method Variance in Sport Management Research
ABSTRACT Common method variance refers to the amount of uncontrolled systematic error leading to biased estimates of scale reliability and validity and to spurious covariance shared among variables due to common method and/or common source employed in survey-based researches. As the extended use of self-report questionnaires is inevitable, numerous studies have provided remedies for this phenomenon. This study primarily aims at the integrative review of four leading sport management journals regarding the way researchers identify and control for common method variance. The results showed that a large proportion (82.4%) of researchers does not deal with the issue of common method variance and only a few articles (15 out of 307) provide sufficient evidence of controlling for common method variance with the use of a combination of procedural and statistical remedies. This article represents an initial attempt to critically approach the integration of the issue of common method variance in sport management research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science
Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
33.30%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: The scope of Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science (MPEES) covers original measurement research, special issues, and tutorials within six substantive disciplines of physical education and exercise science. Six of the seven sections of MPEES define the substantive disciplines within the purview of the original research to be published in the journal: Exercise Science, Physical Activity, Physical Education Pedagogy, Psychology, Research Methodology and Statistics, and Sport Management and Administration. The seventh section of MPEES, Tutorial and Teacher’s Toolbox, serves to provide an outlet for review and/or didactic manuscripts to be published in the journal. Special issues provide an avenue for a coherent set of manuscripts (e.g., four to five) to collectively focus in-depth on an important and timely measurement-related issue within the scope of MPEES. The primary aim of MPEES is to publish high-impact manuscripts, most of which will focus on original research, that fit within the scope of the journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信