"Best research practices in clinical science: Reflections on the status quo and charting a path forward": Correction...

Reports an error in "Best research practices in clinical science: Reflections on the status quo and charting a path forward" by June Gruber and Jutta Joormann (Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 2020[Jan], Vol 129[1], 1-4). In the article, an incomplete sentence in the abstract read "This special section aims to take stock of current practices in our field and to reflect on them by providing user-friendly articles on common practices across a variety of methodologies in." The complete sentence is as follows: "This special section aims to take stock of current practices in our field and to reflect on them by providing user-friendly articles on common practices across a variety of methodologies in clinical science." The online version of this article has been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2019-79779-001.) Clinical psychological science is a rapidly evolving field using a diverse set of methods in various populations. Many of our common research practices and everyday decisions on how and when to use certain methods are described with little detail and formal guidelines and open discussion of those (formal and informal) guidelines is often missing. This special section aims to take stock of current practices in our field and to reflect on them by providing user-friendly articles on common practices across a variety of methodologies in clinical science. The articles cover 4 broad areas: (a) diagnostic and clinical assessment including the importance of interrater reliability, the challenges of extreme group designs, and transdiagnostic approaches; (b) clinical neuroscience research including clinical psychophysiology work and translational neuroscience; (c) research conducted outside the laboratory setting including experience sampling and online studies; and (d) daily research practices. A particular focus is on how the discussed practices apply specifically to psychiatric and at-risk clinical populations and the unique methodological challenges that arise when working with these sensitive populations. The contributors to this special issue represent a diverse group whose efforts target a variety of settings and processes with the ultimate goal of increasing transparency surrounding our everyday decisions about designs, methods, and data analysis. We hope that each of the pieces in this section offer inspiration and provide a resource as well as a starting point for further discussion. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).