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).

中文翻译：

---

“临床科学的最佳研究实践：对现状的反思和前进之路”：对Gruber和Joormann的更正（2020）。

报道了June Gruber和Jutta Joormann撰写的“临床科学最佳研究实践：对现状的思考和未来之路”一文中的错误（《异常心理学杂志》，2020年[Jan]，第129卷[1]，1-4） 。在本文中，摘要中有一个不完整的句子，其中写着“该特殊部分旨在总结本领域的当前实践，并通过提供有关各种方法中的常见实践的用户友好文章来对此进行反思。” 完整的句子如下：“此特殊部分旨在总结我们领域的当前实践，并通过提供有关各种临床科学方法学中的常见实践的用户友好文章来对此进行反思。” 本文的在线版本已得到纠正。（原始文章的以下摘要出现在记录2019-79779-001中）。临床心理学是一个快速发展的领域，在不同人群中使用了多种方法。关于如何以及何时使用某些方法的许多常见研究实践和日常决策很少详细描述，也没有正式的指南，而经常缺少对这些（正式和非正式）指南的公开讨论。该特殊部分旨在总结本领域的当前实践，并通过提供有关各种临床科学方法学中的常见实践的用户友好文章来对它们进行反思。这些文章涵盖了4个广泛的领域：（a）诊断和临床评估，包括间信度可靠性的重要性，极端团队设计的挑战和转诊方法；（b）临床神经科学研究，包括临床心理生理学工作和转化神经科学研究；（c）在实验室以外进行的研究，包括经验抽样和在线研究；（d）日常研究实践。特别关注的是所讨论的做法如何专门适用于精神病和高危临床人群，以及与这些敏感人群合作时出现的独特方法挑战。本期特刊的作者代表了一个多元化的团队，他们的工作针对各种设置和过程，其最终目标是围绕我们有关设计，方法和数据分析的日常决策提高透明度。我们希望本节中的每个部分都可以提供启发，并提供资源和进一步讨论的起点。