{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013111888111888112, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006993006993006993, 'mean_word_length': 5.396648044692737, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
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.