Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Oct 1.
Published before final editing as: Clin Psychol Sci. 2026 Sep 29:10.1177/21677026261421153. doi: 10.1177/21677026261421153

Re-Envisioning Clinical Science Training: Open Science as One of Many Important Steps

David IK Moniz-Lewis 1,2, Victoria R Votaw 3,4, Cassandra L Boness 1,2, Katie Witkiewitz 1,2
PMCID: PMC13626130  NIHMSID: NIHMS2140294  PMID: 42820087

Abstract

Van Til et al., (2025) identify opportunities for the integration of open science curricula in clinical psychology doctoral programs and provide evidence that such content remains limited in many programs. This commentary applauds those efforts and extends them by discussing system-level barriers to implementing open science training and the need to radically rethink clinical science training, with the ultimate goal of addressing essential competencies that are currently not covered in many programs, including but not limited to open science. Reducing the prevalence of questionable research practices and strengthening the rigor and transparency of clinical science is necessary, and may require re-envisioning contemporary clinical science training and incentives in our field.

Introduction

The registered report by Van Til and colleagues (2025) examines how training in open science practices and principles has (and has not) been adopted within accredited clinical psychology PhD programs. This rigorous registered report focused on materials from research methods courses and the experiences and attitudes of current graduate students enrolled in American Psychological Association (APA)-accredited PhD programs. The authors concluded that open science practices are not widely incorporated into these programs, despite graduate student respondents’ enthusiasm for learning more about these topics. We commend the authors for shining a light on current practices and attitudes toward open science and seeking to improve the rigor and replicability of clinical science.

In this commentary, we discuss important considerations that shape how the findings of Van Til and colleagues (2025) are interpreted and applied. We seek to contextualize these findings within a broader systems-level perspective by highlighting (a) the systemic career-stage constraints and incentive structures that shape the feasibility of open science practices within current training systems; (b) the reality that open science training competes with other essential training domains within a finite curriculum; and (c) tensions that may arise between open science and other essential domains of training (e.g., community-engaged research, idiographic methods, implementation science).

To be explicit, we fully agree with Van Til and colleagues (2025) that open science training should be a core competency in clinical science. Our central concern is that, in isolation, open science training cannot be implemented as an ‘add-on’ solution to an already overloaded graduate curriculum situated within a broader incentive ecology that often fails to support these practices in a feasible and equitable way. Meaningful and equitable adoption of open science will thus require not only changes in trainee competencies, but also in the very systems that shape the training structures, evaluation criteria, mentoring capacity, and research infrastructure that modern clinical science demands.

Strenghts and Considerations of Van Til & Colleagues (2025)

The work of Van Til and colleagues (2025) has many strengths. First, the study itself models the values it evaluates: the two-part study is conducted as a registered report, which serves as a clear and pragmatic example of the uptake and application of the open science practices that are recommended to be taught by Van Til et al., (2025). Further, the study draws from a variety of sources (research methods syllabi and surveys of current graduate trainees) to draw conclusions about the landscape of contemporary clinical psychology doctoral training (Van Til et al., 2025). By triangulating across these sources, the converging evidence highlights a notable lack of formal training in open science practices among current trainees (Van Til et al., 2025). A transparent and reproducible clinical psychological science free of questionable research practices (QRPs) is essential for the advancement of our field. As demonstrated by Van Til and colleagues (2025), equipping trainees with skills for how to engage in transparent science alongside the knowledge of why this is essential remains an important training gap.

At the same time, training does not occur in a vacuum. Decisions about what is taught, how it is taught, and what is rewarded are shaped by broader systemic factors. When viewed from this broader systems-level context, we suggest that the advancement of open science training has been hindered by the systems that shape the field of psychological science and thus the training programs that mold the next generation of clinical scientists. Indeed, open-science training may be most successfully implemented when it is paired with changes to incentives, evaluation criteria, and infrastructure that determine whether these practices are feasible, appetitive, and sustainable for trainees and training programs.

Implementation Barriers to Open Science Training

Many potential systemic barriers impede the implementation of open science training within clinical psychology doctoral training programs. Below, we highlight potential barriers to implementing open science training more broadly, specifically from the perspectives of faculty and current students. We draw upon our own experiences across career stages and in various settings (e.g., psychology departments, academic medical centers) to illustrate how systemic factors may differentially shape the feasibility and uptake of open science principles and practices. Where relevant, we highlight opportunities to improve the likelihood of implementing open science through systemic changes. These examples are intended to complement rather than negate the empirical findings of Van Til and colleagues (2025).

Faculty Perspectives

From the faculty perspective in a graduate training program that relies on a mentor-driven training approach, there are many competing demands and institutional expectations that shape how mentors allocate time both within and outside of the lab. Yet, these competing demands might vary by career stages. Senior faculty, as leaders in the department, may often experience greater pressure to prioritize the goals of the training program (e.g., time to completion) over those of their own labs (e.g., extensive training and exposure to open science approaches). Survey data indicate that although Full Professors spend an average of 60+ hours/week engaged in their professional roles (Flaherty, 2014), those in psychology departments spend less than 50% of their time teaching and mentoring (Fuegen & Hatchett, 2024). If open science curriculum is to be implemented successfully, this already limited effort needs to be shifted toward faculty training in open science and subsequent mentoring in open science, and the goals of the training program will need to shift to support this change in focus. On the other hand, for early career faculty, there are often limited financial and personnel resources, which are valuable for supporting the implementation of open science practices. Despite their inherent value, many of the practices described by Van Til et al. (2025) can be time-consuming and resource-intensive. While there are open science practices that are much more accessible and less costly than others (e.g., pre-registration), when considered alongside competing demands required for retention and promotion (e.g., building a lab, teaching, mentorship), employing open science practices within one’s lab can understandably become a lower priority, even if the faculty member values such practices.

These burdens on faculty are particularly pronounced among women and faculty of color and other minoritized identities, who continue to be underrepresented in STEM fields (Galán et al., 2023) and who face an overload of activities that do not advance careers, including disproportionate service, administrative, and mentoring loads (Ceci et al., 2014; Masters-Waage et al., 2024; Trejo, 2020). These pervasive systemic pressures may limit the ability of faculty, particularly women and those from marginalized and underrepresented backgrounds, to have the bandwidth to expand training opportunities in open science practices beyond what they are already doing. Additionally, this can create a situation whereby those with less resources or capacity to engage in open science practices are unfairly assumed to be less rigorous scientists or are professionally penalized in other ways (Bahlai et al., 2019; Lui et al., 2022). This is particularly problematic, given that researchers of color and those in under-resourced locations, institutions, or countries may be more likely to study topics related to health equity and multiculturalism (Lui, 2022; Lui et al., 2022). Taken together, incentivizing open science practices and reducing other service burdens will be essential for systemic changes.

Given considerations across career stages and positions of power, we believe it is critical for mid-career and senior faculty who can influence what is taught in required graduate courses to use their privilege to support updating syllabi and program requirements to support open science practices across the curriculum (not just research methods courses). More importantly, faculty in leadership positions need to work toward influencing broader systems to educate decision-makers and recommend open science training as a required element of clinical science training. Mid-career and senior faculty influence these systems through service roles as members of accrediting bodies, tenure and promotion committees, grant review committees, science funding leadership roles, and editorial roles, among others, and using this influence to re-imagine clinical training is essential to the successful implementation of open science training in the clinical science curriculum.

We would also like to note that while Van Til and colleagues (2025) focused on open science training in clinical psychology doctoral programs, many clinical psychologists in other settings play a major role in training future clinical psychologists at various career stages, which introduces a unique set of challenges and opportunities. For example, psychologists in academic medical centers often mentor research assistants preparing for graduate school, as well as postdoctoral fellows, practicum students, interns, and medical students. These trainees are usually in labs for limited durations, which, taken together with competing demands on time, poses challenges to the integration of open science practices. Meeting this challenge (e.g., introducting practices like pre-registration), however, is also an opportunity for faculty to provide trainees with a basic understanding of open science practices before they enter graduate school, or to address gaps in graduate training among postdoctoral trainees. Faculty in these settings can also support the next generation of clinical scientists by exposing them to open science concepts and encouraging prospective graduate students to seek out mentors who engage in open science and programs that require open science training. As prospective trainees begin to prioritize open science training, faculty eager to recruit the most promising students may adapt their labs to better incorporate open science practices into their existing work.

Graduate Student Perspectives

From the vantage point of graduate students, challenges to learning about and applying open science practices are intrinsically linked to the competing demands of psychology doctoral training, which aims to equip students with the skills necessary for multifaceted careers involving clinical practice, research, teaching, and/or supervision, among other roles (e.g., administration, policy). One of the most immediate hurdles to learning and applying open science principles is the sheer velocity and quantity of training expectations (Gee et al., 2022). The first one to two years of graduate training are often characterized by a succession of milestones: intensive coursework, the development and completion of milestones such as a master’s thesis and comprehensive/qualifying exams, foundational clinical training, teaching and/or teaching assistantships, and often significant pressure for initial publications and conference presentations. In these initial years, students must also quickly acclimate to the expectations and culture of their program, respective lab(s), research mentor(s), and academia more broadly, which can be especially challenging for first generation students, women, and students of color (Galán et al., 2023; Stone et al., 2018). This fast-paced environment can inadvertently create a challenging context to simultaneously learn and implement open science practices among these competing demands.

However, opportunities for more structured integration of open science practices into several courses that students are already taking, as well as milestone requirements, may be an ideal method for the uptake of open science practices. For instance, alongside Van Til and colleagues’ (2025) call for increased exposure to open science principles in research methods courses, programs could consider encouraging or even requiring pre-registration for comprehensive exams or dissertation proposals. Furthermore, the requirements of specific fellowships or grants (e.g., NIH data-sharing expectations for F31 and R36 awards) can serve as powerful catalysts for increasing students’ familiarity with applying open science principles in later stages of their training. Further, if we wish to increase the uptake of open science principles among students, they need to be incentivized not only programmatically but also more broadly within the field. Being a graduate student is a vulnerable career stage that is inherently unstable and made tolerable by the hope of landing a stable career. Requiring open science training as part of the curriculum, ideally led by accrediting bodies, will take the responsibility for receiving this training off of the graduate students who often lack power and influence over curriculum decisions. Similarly, when faculty and hiring committees value open science practices over and above the number of publications and h-index, it will be more likely that students and their mentors will value these approaches as much as traditional metrics.

The Imperative of Top-Down Leadership in Open Science

These latter points highlight an essential takeaway from this section: Leadership in science, be it open science or otherwise, is inherently a top-down process. Across career stages, from trainees to senior faculty, the implementation of open science is shaped by systemic factors. Consequently, the widespread adoption of open science principles becomes less probable if the overarching systems in which we operate do not genuinely value and prioritize them. Without such top-down commitment to open science practices, particularly from institution and university leadership, hiring committees, funding agencies, and accrediting bodies, the prospect of open science principles becoming the norm is significantly diminished, regardless of the content of research methods courses.

To this end, there is a need to generate creative solutions to the barriers to implementing open science, as we have described above (e.g., requiring open science practices in graduate milestones, revising hiring and evaluation rubrics to give credit to individuals who use open science practices, etc.; Bahlai et al., [2019]). Indeed, such top-down changes are already underway and continue to be advocated for by leaders in the field (Howard et al., 2025). Once institutions and universities, funders, accreditors, and departments embed these incentives into review and promotion criteria, open science can shift from an individual burden on a select number of champions to a shared standard for the field. Standardizing and embedding open science practices from the top down also provides an opportunity to increase equitable access to open science training.

Competing Demands for Advancing Clinical Science Training

Although Van Til et al. (2025) rightfully highlight how clinical psychology PhD programs often inadequately cover topics such as the replication crisis and open science, these are not the only important gaps in training. As such, we propose a re-envisioning of clinical training that requires open science training as part of the curriculum and incorporates other training needs, such as addiction science, implementation science, community-engaged science, and exposure to idiographic methodology – as but some of many critical areas that are currently lacking in most training programs.

One significant challenge in re-envisioning clinical science training is balancing critical clinical competencies with research competencies. While open science training is an essential and foundational gap in the area of research competencies, the average student also reports significant weaknesses in the clinical training they receive. As one particularly striking example, of which there are many (for a thorough review of both research and clinical training gaps see Gee et al., [2022]), only half of clinical and counseling graduate students receive any information about addiction in their coursework (Madson et al., 2008), and only a third of clinical psychology PhD programs offer specialized clinical training in addiction (Dimoff et al., 2017), which is notable given that addiction is highly prevalent and undertreated (Grant et al., 2016; Hasin et al., 2018). High rates of comorbidity suggest that most clinical psychologists will treat individuals with addictive behavior problems, and most researchers studying clinical populations will have participants who have addictive behavior problems in their research studies. Training in the measurement of addictive behaviors and how addictive behaviors may manifest in clients and in research is critical, and underscores the challenge in balancing open science training with other urgent training needs. Thus, we offer this gap in addiction science training as one illustrative example of numerous widely documented training gaps (Gee et al., 2022).

Current training curricula also overlook research methods needed to move the field of clinical science forward. Recent advances in implementation science have major implications for how clinical psychological practices can be integrated and sustained in real-world settings (Bauer & Kirchner, 2020; Stirman & Beidas, 2020), however very few clinical psychology PhD programs offer coursework in implementation science (Beidas et al., 2025). Beidas and colleagues (2025) identified competencies critical to implementation science training, including learning about and evaluating implementation science theories, models, and study designs, training in the assessment and analysis of contextual factors across settings, and gaining skills in science communication. Yet, most of these topics are not taught in current clinical psychology programs despite their potential to advance clinical science in real-world settings.

Training in community-engaged research is also desparately needed and lacking. Further, the priorities and values aligned with the open science approach may at times appear to conflict with other approaches to science, such as community-engaged, participatory, and multicultural research approaches (Lui, 2022; Lui et al., 2021, 2022), which may be confusing for trainees. For example, open science practices value data sharing, statistical rigor, and dissemination to the scientific community, whereas community-engaged approaches recognize the value of co-creating knowledge, the importance of context, and dissemination of results to research participants and specific communities (Lui et al., 2021, 2022). Despite these challenges, there have been important calls to integrate open science and community-engaged and multicultural approaches to research given their shared focus on accountability and transparency to increase trust in science. Such calls have also included practical solutions for training, such as incorporating more inclusive teaching practices that address both approaches and supporting trainees in thinking critically about their intersection, promoting team science, and ongoing disincentivizing of QRPs (Lui, 2022; Lui et al., 2022).

Finally, we believe that training in open science is necessary but not sufficient to address the replication crisis, and that clinical science programs require deeper training in measurement development, philosophy of science, and both qualitative and quantitative methods suited to capturing the contextually-embedded, dynamic, and heterogeneous processes we seek to understand in psychological science (Hayes et al., 1988; Molenaar, 2004, 2013; Scheel et al., 2021). At the core of Van Til et al. (2025)’s registered report lies rightful concern over the replication crisis and aspirations for a robust, transparent, and reproducible clinical psychological science. However, even if open science practices and the elimination of QRPs were widely adopted, they may prove insufficient to resolve the replication crisis fully (Gernigon et al., 2024; Molenaar, 2008, 2013). Methodological and epistemological challenges inherent in studying complex human behavior and psychological processes may contribute to our consistent failures with replication (Gernigon et al., 2024). For example, given the dynamic and context-dependent nature of psychological phenomena, striving to replicate an average effect from one heterogeneous group to another will inevitably yield inconsistencies irrespective of the transparency of the methods used (Gernigon et al., 2024; Molenaar, 2004, 2008). Moreover, the common practice of generalizing findings from nomothetic group-level data (i.e., inter-individual variation) to idiographic individual psychological processes (i.e., intra-individual variation) rests on the assumption of ergodicity, which is rarely met in psychological science (Molenaar, 2008; Sanford et al., 2022). Taken together, common methods and levels of analysis typically employed in psychological science are likely additional contributors to the replication crisis that are worth addressing in graduate training (Eronen, 2020; Gernigon et al., 2024; Ghai et al., 2025; Hayes et al., 2024; Piccirillo & Rodebaugh, 2019). Although open science practices are necessary steps to advance rigor and transparency, we must also increase training in methods that better account for the complexity of psychological phenomena (Molenaar, 2004, 2013; Scheel et al., 2021).

Given current coursework requirements for accrediting bodies, it seems impossible to add on courses in open science in addition to these other critical areas (e.g., addiction treatment, implementation science, community-engaged methods, qualitative, advanced quantitative, and idiographic methods, etc.) to address every existing gap. Thus, re-thinking what is required training is desperately needed to bring clinical training into the 21st century (Berenbaum et al., 2021). In the interim, incorporating training in these critical areas into existing courses, required milestone projects, and/or low barrier venues (e.g., departmental colloquia) is needed.

Conclusion

The work of Van Til and colleagues (2025) is to be commended for highlighting gaps and opportunities to advance training in open science practices and reduce the prevalence of QRPs in clinical psychology PhD programs. This commentary aims to extend Van Til and colleagues’ contributions by adding nuance to our collective goal of advancing clinical science training. We contextualize this goal by highlighting current systemic barriers to the implementation of open science, alongside additional training gaps and competing demands within a finite curriculum, and potential solutions therein. Taken together, we argue that meaningful improvements in clinical science training will require not only strengthening open science competencies among trainees, but also re-envisioning what is prioritized by the systemic incentive structures in which we are embedded. Ultimately, we seek to support the value of open science as one of many important steps towards the actualization of our field’s highest aspiration: the improved understanding and amelioration of psychological suffering.

Footnotes

Authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. Bahlai CA, Bartlett LJ, Burgio KR, Fournier AM, Keiser CN, Poisot T, & Whitney KS (2019). Ethics: Open Science Isn’t Always Open to All Scientists. American Scientist, 107(2), 78–82. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bauer MS, & Kirchner J (2020). Implementation science: What is it and why should I care? Psychiatry Research, 283, 112376. 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.04.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Beidas RS, Boyd M, Casline E, Scott K, Patel-Syed Z, Mills C, Mustanski B, Schriger S, Williams FS, Waller C, Helseth SA, & Becker SJ (2025). Harnessing Implementation Science in Clinical Psychology: Past, Present, and Future. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 21(Volume 21, 2025), 529–555. 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081423-021727 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Berenbaum H, Washburn JJ, Sbarra D, Reardon KW, Schuler T, Teachman BA, Hollon SD, Atkins MS, Hamilton JL, & Hetrick WP (2021). Accelerating the rate of progress in reducing mental health burdens: Recommendations for training the next generation of clinical psychologists. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 28(2), 107. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ceci SJ, Ginther DK, Kahn S, & Williams WM (2014). Women in Academic Science: A Changing Landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 15(3), 75–141. 10.1177/1529100614541236 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dimoff JD, Sayette MA, & Norcross JC (2017). Addiction training in clinical psychology: Are we keeping up with the rising epidemic? American Psychologist, 72(7), 689. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Eronen MI (2020). Causal discovery and the problem of psychological interventions. New Ideas in Psychology, 59, 100785. 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2020.100785 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Flaherty C (2014). So Much to Do, So Little Time. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/04/09/research-shows-professors-work-long-hours-and-spend-much-day-meetings [Google Scholar]
  9. Fuegen K, & Hatchett GT (2024). Time Allocation and Satisfaction Among Tenured Psychology Faculty at Public, Regional Universities. Teaching of Psychology, 51(3), 334–344. 10.1177/00986283231178242 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Fuentes MA, Zelaya DG, Delgado-Romero EA, & Butt M (2023). Open science: Friend, foe, or both to an antiracist psychology? Psychological Review, 130(5), 1351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Galán CA, Bowdring MA, Tung I, Sequeira SL, Call CC, Savell S, Boness CL, Northrup J, & Scholars for Elevating Equity and Diversity (SEED). (2023). Real change or performative anti-racism? Clinical psychology programs’ efforts to recruit and retain BIPOC scholars. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 52(3), 411–426. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Gee DG, DeYoung KA, McLaughlin KA, Tillman RM, Barch DM, Forbes EE, Krueger RF, Strauman TJ, Weierich MR, & Shackman AJ (2022). Training the next generation of clinical psychological scientists: A data-driven call to action. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 18(1), 43–70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gernigon C, Den Hartigh RJ, Vallacher RR, & Van Geert PL (2024). How the complexity of psychological processes reframes the issue of reproducibility in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 19(6), 952–977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ghai S, Thériault R, Forscher P, Shoda Y, Syed M, Puthillam A, Peng HC, Basnight-Brown D, Majid A, & Azevedo F (2025). A manifesto for a globally diverse, equitable, and inclusive open science. Communications Psychology, 3(1), 16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Grant BF, Saha TD, Ruan WJ, Goldstein RB, Chou SP, Jung J, Zhang H, Smith SM, Pickering RP, & Huang B (2016). Epidemiology of DSM-5 drug use disorder: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions–III. JAMA Psychiatry, 73(1), 39–47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hasin DS, Sarvet AL, Meyers JL, Saha TD, Ruan WJ, Stohl M, & Grant BF (2018). Epidemiology of adult DSM-5 major depressive disorder and its specifiers in the United States. JAMA Psychiatry, 75(4), 336–346. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hayes SC, Hayes LJ, & Reese HW (1988). Finding the philosophical core: A review of Stephen C. Pepper’s World Hypotheses: A Study in Evidence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50(1), 97. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hayes SC, Sahdra BK, Ciarrochi J, Hofmann SG, & Sanford B (2024). How a Process-Based Idionomic Approach Changes our Understanding of Mindfulness as a Method and Process [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. 10.31234/osf.io/xkcs6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Howard AL, Neal TM, Kirtley OJ, Urry HL, & Tackett JL (2025). Open science at Clinical Psychological Science: Reflections on progress, lessons learned, and suggestions for continued improvement. Clinical Psychological Science, 13(1), 195–204. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lui PP (2022). Integrating open science and multiculturalism to restore trust in psychology. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(10), 555–556. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lui PP, Gobrial S, Pham S, Giadolor W, Adams N, & Rollock D (2022). Open science and multicultural research: Some data, considerations, and recommendations. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 28(4), 567. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Lui PP, Skewes MC, Gobrial S, & Rollock D (2021). Advancing transparency and impact of research: Initiating crosstalk between Indigenous research and mainstream “open science.” Journal of Indigenous Research, 9(2021), 10. [Google Scholar]
  23. Madson MB, Bethea AR, Daniel S, & Necaise H (2008). The state of substance abuse treatment training in counseling and counseling psychology programs: What is and is not happening. Journal of Teaching in the Addictions, 7(2), 164–178. [Google Scholar]
  24. Masters-Waage T, Spitzmueller C, Edema-Sillo E, St. Aubin A, Penn-Marshall M, Henderson E, Lindner P, Werner C, Rizzuto T, & Madera J (2024). Underrepresented minority faculty in the USA face a double standard in promotion and tenure decisions. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(11), 2107–2118. 10.1038/s41562-024-01977-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Molenaar PCM (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 2(4), 201–218. 10.1207/s15366359mea0204_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Molenaar PCM (2008). On the implications of the classical ergodic theorems: Analysis of developmental processes has to focus on intra-individual variation. Developmental Psychobiology, 50(1), 60–69. 10.1002/dev.20262 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Molenaar PCM (2013). On the necessity to use person-specific data analysis approaches in psychology. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10(1), 29–39. [Google Scholar]
  28. Piccirillo ML, & Rodebaugh TL (2019). Foundations of idiographic methods in psychology and applications for psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology Review, 71, 90–100. 10.1016/j.cpr.2019.01.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Sanford BT, Ciarrochi J, Hofmann SG, Chin F, Gates KM, & Hayes SC (2022). Toward empirical process-based case conceptualization: An idionomic network examination of the process-based assessment tool. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 25, 10–25. 10.1016/j.jcbs.2022.05.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Scheel AM, Tiokhin L, Isager PM, & Lakens D (2021). Why hypothesis testers should spend less time testing hypotheses. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 744–755. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Stirman SW, & Beidas RS (2020). Expanding the Reach of Psychological Science Through Implementation Science: Introduction to the Special Issue. The American Psychologist, 75(8), 1033–1037. 10.1037/amp0000774 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Stone S, Saucer C, Bailey M, Garba R, Hurst A, Jackson SM, Krueger N, & Cokley K (2018). Learning while Black: A culturally informed model of the impostor phenomenon for Black graduate students. Journal of Black Psychology, 44(6), 491–531. [Google Scholar]
  33. Trejo J (2020). The burden of service for faculty of color to achieve diversity and inclusion: The minority tax. Mol Biol Cell, 31(25), 2752–2754. 10.1091/mbc.E20-08-0567 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Van Til K, Phillips NL, Du TV, Rose L, Miller JD, & Lynam DR (2025). Open-Science Training in American Psychological Association–Accredited Clinical-Psychology Programs: A Registered Report. Clinical Psychological Science, 21677026251331550. 10.1177/21677026251331550 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES