Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research

2014 Edition
| Editors: Alex C. Michalos

Method Effects

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_1796

Definition

Psychological constructs such as subjective well-being can be measured by different methods (e.g., self-report, other report, ambulatory monitoring). A method effect is that part of the measurement of a trait that is not shared with other methods.

Description

Psychological constructs can be measured by different methods (Eid & Diener, 2006). For example, the habitual  mood level as an indicator of affective well-being can be measured by (1) asking people how they generally feel, (2) assessing repeatedly the momentary mood of individuals in their daily lives and calculating the mean of the state ratings, and (3) peer reports of the general mood level of an individual. According to Fiske (1987), “method is everything that the investigator does in order to obtain a set of measurements” (p. 184). According to Kenny (1995, p. 112) there are three types of methods: raters as methods, instrument-based methods, and temporal methods (having several occasions of measurement). With...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.Google Scholar
  2. Eid, M. (2006). Methodological approaches for analyzing multimethod data. In M. Eid & E. Diener (Eds.), Handbook of psychological measurement: A multimethod perspective (pp. 223–230). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  3. Eid, M., & Diener, E. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  4. Eid, M., Nussbeck, F., Geiser, C., Cole, D., Gollwitzer, M., & Lischetzke, T. (2008). Structural equation modeling of multitrait-multimethod data: Different models for different types of methods. Psychological Methods, 13, 230–253.Google Scholar
  5. Fiske, D. W. (1987). On understanding our methods and their effects. Diagnostica, 33, 188–194.Google Scholar
  6. Kenny, D. A. (1995). The multitrait-multimethod matrix: Design, analysis, and conceptual issues. In P. E. Shrout & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Personality research, methods, and theory (pp. 111–124). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. 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, 879–903.Google Scholar
  8. Sechrest, L., Davis, M., Stickle, T., & McKnight, P. (2000). Understanding “method” variance. In L. Bickman (Ed.), Research design: Donald Campbell’s legacy (pp. 63–87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Stone, A., & Litcher-Kelly, L. (2006). Momentary capture of real world data. In M. Eid & E. Diener (Eds.), Handbook of psychological measurement: A multimethod perspective (pp. 61–72). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education and PsychologyFree University of BerlinBerlinGermany