Common method variance (CMV) is an important concern in international marketing research because presumed substantive relationships may actually be due to shared method variance. Since method effects may vary systematically across cultures and countries, accounting for method effects in international marketing research is particularly critical. A systematic review of articles published in the Journal of International Marketing over a five-year period (2015-2019, N = 93) shows that (a) authors often report post hoc CMV tests but usually conclude that CMV is not an issue and that (b) many post hoc tests are conducted using the Harman one-factor test and the marker variable technique, which have serious deficiencies for detecting and controlling CMV. Based on a classification and comparative evaluation of the most common statistical approaches for dealing with CMV, two approaches are recommended and a procedure for dealing with CMV in international marketing research is proposed. The procedure, which is based on multi-sample structural equation modeling, is illustrated with data from a cross-national pan-European survey (N =11,970, 14 countries), which shows that even though method variance is present in the data, method effects do not seriously bias the substantive conclusions in this particular study.

通用方法差异（CMV）是国际市场研究中的一个重要问题，因为假定的实质关系实际上可能是由于共享方法差异引起的。由于方法的效果可能会在不同文化和国家/地区之间发生系统性的变化，因此在国际营销研究中考虑方法的效果尤为关键。对五年期间（2015-2019，N = 93）上发表在《国际市场营销杂志》上的文章的系统评价显示，（a）作者经常报告事后CMV测试，但通常得出的结论是CMV不是问题，并且（b）许多事后使用Harman单因素测试和标记变量技术进行测试，这在检测和控制CMV方面存在严重缺陷。在对CMV最常用的统计方法进行分类和比较评估的基础上，推荐了两种方法，并提出了国际营销研究中CMV的处理方法。该程序基于多样本结构方程模型，并通过一项跨国泛欧调查（N = 11,970，14个国家/地区）的数据进行了说明，该调查表明，即使数据中存在方法差异，方法效果不会严重偏重该特定研究中的实质性结论。