Evaluating the impact of method bias in health behaviour research: a meta-analytic examination of studies utilising the theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour

References

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ajzen, I. (2006). Constructing a theory of planned behavior questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Retrieved from http://people.umass.edu/~aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(Pt. 4), 471–499. doi: 10.1348/014466601164939
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnulf, J. K., Larsen, K. R., Martinsen, O. L., & Bong, C. H. (2014). Predicting survey responses: How and why semantics shape survey statistics on organizational behaviour. Plos One, 9(9), e106361. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106361
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2016). Australian burden of disease study: Impact and causes of illness and death in Australia 2011. Australian burden of disease study series no. 3, BOD 4. Canberra: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Bagozzi, R. P. (2011). Measurement and meaning in information systems and organizational research: Methodological and philosophical foundations. MIS Quarterly, 35, 261–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
   Google Scholar
• Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50, 1088–1101. doi: 10.2307/2533446
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2014). Comprehensive meta-analysis. Version 3. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
   Google Scholar
• Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105. doi: 10.1037/h0046016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conner, M., Norman, P., & Bell, R. (2002). The theory of planned behavior and healthy eating. Health Psychology, 21(2), 194–201. doi:10.1037//0278-6133.21.2.194 doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.21.2.194
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conner, M., Warren, R., Close, S., & Sparks, P. (1999). Alcohol consumption and the theory of planned behavior: An examination of the cognitive mediation of past behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(8), 1676–1704. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02046.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooke, R., Dahdah, M., Norman, P., & French, D. P. (2016). How well does the theory of planned behaviour predict alcohol consumption? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 10(2), 148–167. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2014.947547
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1987). Estimating trait, method, and error variance: Estimating across 70 construct validation studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 315–318. doi: 10.2307/3151642
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Courneya, K. S. (1994). Predicting repeated behavior from intention: The issue of scale correspondence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(7), 580–594. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00601.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results. Organizational Research Methods, 1(4), 374–406. doi: 10.1177/109442819814002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463. doi:10.1111/j.006-341X.2000.00455.x doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629–634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Francis, J. J., Eccles, M. P., Johnston, M., Walker, A., Grimshaw, J., Foy, R., … Bonetti, D. (2004). Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behaviour: A manual for health service researchers. Retrieved from http://www.bangor.ac.uk/~pes004/exercise_psych/downloads/tpb_manual.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Godin, G., Valois, P., & Lepage, L. (1993). The pattern of influence of perceived behavioral control upon exercising behavior: An application of Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 16(1), 81–102. doi: 10.1007/BF00844756
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2005). First- and higher-order models of attitudes, normative influence, and perceived behavioural control in the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(Pt. 4), 513–535. doi: 10.1348/014466604X16219
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ, 327(7414), 557–560. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ioannidis, J. P., & Trikalinos, T. A. (2007). The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: A large survey. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 176(8), 1091–1096. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.060410
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin, Z. C., Zhou, X. H., & He, J. (2015). Statistical methods for dealing with publication bias in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 34(2), 343–360. doi: 10.1002/sim.6342
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser, F. G., Schultz, P., & Scheuthle, H. (2007). The theory of planned behavior without compatibility? Beyond method bias and past trivial associations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(7), 1522–1544. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00225.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDermott, M. S., Oliver, M., Simnadis, T., Beck, E. J., Coltman, T., Iverson, D., & Sharma, R. (2015). The theory of planned behaviour and dietary patterns: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Preventive Medicine, 81, 150–156. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.08.020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDermott, M. S., Oliver, M., Svenson, A., Simnadis, T., Beck, E. J., Coltman, T., & Sharma, R. (2015). The theory of planned behaviour and discrete food choices: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12(1), 439. doi: 10.1186/s12966-015-0324-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDermott, M. S., Sharma, R., Andrews, M., Akter, S., Iverson, D., Caputi, P., & Safadi, M. (2016). The moderating impact of temporal separation on the association between intention and physical activity: A meta-analysis. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 21(5), 625–631. doi: 10.1080/13548506.2015.1080371
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McEachan, R. R. C., Conner, M., Taylor, N. J., & Lawton, R. J. (2011). Prospective prediction of health-related behaviours with the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5(2), 97–144. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.521684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher, D., & Tricco, A. C. (2008). Issues related to the conduct of systematic reviews: A focus on the nutrition field. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 88(5), 1191–1199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payne, N., Jones, F., & Harris, P. R. (2004). The role of perceived need within the theory of planned behaviour: A comparison of exercise and healthy eating. British Journal of Health Psychology, 9(4), 489–504. doi: 10.1348/1359107042304524
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Welsh, D. T., & Mai, K. M. (2013). Surveying for ‘artifacts’: The susceptibility of the OCB-performance evaluation relationship to common rater, item, and measurement context effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 863–874. doi: 10.1037/a0032588
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Povey, R., Conner, M., Sparks, P., James, R., & Shepherd, R. (1998). Interpretations of healthy and unhealthy eating, and implications for dietary change. Health Education Research, 13(2), 171–183. doi: 10.1093/her/13.2.171
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhodes, R. E., Matheson, D. H., & Blanchard, C. M. (2006). Beyond scale correspondence: A comparison of continuous open scaling and fixed graded scaling when using social cognitive constructs in the exercise domain. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 10(1), 13–39. doi: 10.1207/s15327841mpee1001_2
   Google Scholar
• Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.86.3.638 doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaller, T. K., Patil, A., & Malhotra, N. K. (2015). Alternative techniques for assessing common method variance: An analysis of the theory of planned behavior research. Organizational Research Methods, 18(2), 177–206. doi: 10.1177/1094428114554398
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulze, R., & Whittmann, W. W. (2003). A meta-analysis of the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behaviour: The principle of compatibility and multidimensionality of beliefs as moderators. In R. Schulze, H. Holling, & D. Bohning (Eds.), Meta-analysis: New developments and applications in medical and social sciences (pp. 219–250). Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54(2), 93–105. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.2.93
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma, R., Safadi, M., Andrews, M., Ogunbona, P. O., & Crawford, J. (2014). Estimating the magnitude of method bias on account of text similarity using a natural language processing-based technique. In B. Tan, E. Karahanna, & A. Srinivasan (Eds.), International conference on information systems (pp. 1–10). Auckland: AIS Electronic Library.
   Google Scholar
• Sharma, R., Yetton, P., & Crawford, J. (2009). Estimating the effect of common method variance: The method-method pair technique with an illustration from TAM research. MIS Quarterly, 33(3), 473–490.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research – truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221–232. doi: 10.1177/1094428105284955
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terrin, N., Schmid, C. H., Lau, J., & Olkin, I. (2003). Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Statistics in Medicine, 22(13), 2113–2126. doi: 10.1002/sim.1461
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yetton, P., Sharma, R., & Crawford, J. (2011). Controlling for method bias: A critique and reconceptualisation of the marker variable technique. Paper presented at the 17th Americas Conference on Information Systems, United States of America.
   Google Scholar