For various reasons, research on vocational behavior often has to rely on self-report measures. Although it is well known that the exclusive use of self-report measures in a given study can pose major threats to the validity of that study, for example via common method variance (CMV) or endogeneity, we still have to witness a systematic literature review of study designs particularly prone to CMV and endogeneity, and of procedural and statistical remedies used in the field of vocational behavior. To determine the vulnerability for CMV and endogeneity, and the extent to which researchers have already taken action and eased concerns over CMV and endogeneity in vocational behavior research through their research design/data collection (procedural remedies) and data analysis (statistical remedies), we review articles published from 2015 to 2018 in the Journal of Vocational Behavior. We found that 81% of all quantitative studies in this period relied exclusively on self-report measures gathered from the same respondent. Of these studies, the majority used procedural remedies to ease concerns of CMV (68%), mainly through the temporal separation of the focal variables (53%). However, statistical tests to detect and/or control for CMV (13%) are still rarely used, and we found no examples of techniques such as instrumental variable estimation to address potential endogeneity. To encourage and guide vocational behavior researchers to further minimize concerns over CMV and endogeneity arising from the exclusive use of self-report measures in future research, we summarize existing recommendations from the methodological literature and provide an updated discussion, specific to vocational behavior, on how to design and conduct impactful vocational behavior research.

由于各种原因，对职业行为的研究通常不得不依靠自我报告的措施。尽管众所周知，在给定的研究中排他性使用自我报告方法可能会对该研究的有效性造成重大威胁，例如通过通用方法变异（CMV）或内生性，但我们仍然必须目睹系统的文献综述的研究设计特别容易出现CMV和内生性，以及在职业行为领域使用的程序和统计补救措施。为了确定CMV和内生性的脆弱性，以及研究人员通过其研究设计/数据收集（程序性补救措施）和数据分析（统计性补救措施）在职业行为研究中已采取行动并减轻对CMV和内生性的担忧，我们查看2015年至2018年发表的文章职业行为杂志。我们发现，在此期间所有定量研究中，有81％仅依赖于同一受访者收集的自我报告数据。在这些研究中，大多数使用程序性补救措施来缓解对CMV的担忧（68％），主要是通过时间分离焦点变量（53％）。但是，仍然很少使用用于检测和/或控制CMV（13％）的统计测试，并且我们没有发现诸如工具变量估计之类的技术来解决潜在的内生性的例子。为鼓励和指导职业行为研究者进一步减少对在未来研究中仅使用自我报告措施而引起的CMV和内生性的担忧，我们总结了方法学文献中的现有建议，并针对职业行为提供了更新的讨论，