how to check for Common Method Bias

[#1]

Please let me know step by step method to perform Common Method Bias in JMP Pro 18

[#2]

Hi!

About 20 to 25 years ago when surveys were conducted without the surveyor (by mail, etc) there was a possibility of the respondent ticking on boxes without even reading the question, in order to complete his / her response (survey bias or acquiescence bias). An inverse scale for some questions, helped overcome this error, which we commonly referred as "satisficing or straight-lining" error.

In the present scenario where multiple items / variables are graded by the respondent, there is a respondent bias resulting in systemic error. Some points listed below helped me reduce the error.

1. More samples in data or sample size > 600

2. More items (variables or questions) in a questionnaire. Though I don't have a threshold for the same, but any survey with questions greater than 25 should suffice.

3. Multi-lingual questionnaire. In India quite a few languages get spoken / understood. If responses are collected in different languages, it helps reduce CMB.

4. Likert scale to be 7 point scale (as against a 5 point scale) for recording responses.

5. Multiple tools of data collection like Google Forms, survey questionnaires, etc.

6. Temporal Separation in completing the survey questionnaire, say part A with 12 questions responded first followed up with part B of the remaining questions after some time delay.

7. Keeping different answers to the same 7 point scale, like let's say most questions have answers ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, while some questions have answers ranging from Completely unsatisfactory to completely satisfactory.

I am also attaching here a ChatGPT output which lists pretty much similar steps / observations. I am sure that the next time I run it, it will also add the above points...

Do let me know your views or views of anyone from JMP community. 

[#3]

Thanks for the suggestions for reducing straight-lining. I don't have a background in survey development so don't have anything to add, but I'm sure some User Community members will find this helpful, and some might have tips of their own to share.

[#4]

By the way, thanks to you & Ross for some amazing video explanation of various concepts.

One aspect which is really impressive is that you stick to your timelines in completing the schedule. I am not sure whether you do any editing after recording or are able to do the content - time management in one go. In a live session (& for over 35 years) I have been unable to strictly limit my sessions to the timelines. Either it extends or ends a bit early as the duration depends on discussions & student understanding of the concept.

[#5]

Thanks for your kind words about our video tutorials, Pradeep :).

With respect to your Google search, you're not doing anything wrong: Google's AI Overview is incorrect about VIFs in the SEM platform. Google appears to be reporting information from the Fit Least Squares documentation despite your question being specific to SEM. And somewhat frustratingly, when I asked Google the same question (but perhaps with slightly different wording), the AI Overview correctly reported that the SEM platform doesn't report VIFs. So it gives two mutually exclusive answers to the same underlying question! These LLMs are amazing in many ways, but I recommend checking the cited pages whenever the information you've requested is particularly important to you. I've many times found that the AI Overview has made false statements.

 

[#6]

Great. I have enrolled for the two-part webinar series for Academics on the use of JMP Pro to build up the course pack. I have also circulated your message across the School (School of Business, Galgotias University) so that my colleagues could also join & register. The only challenge to most of us is the timing of the program, which works out to 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m., our local time. Having said this, I would surely attend the same & send you a Hi!