Molly Nikolas, University of Iowa
Abstract: Psychological science remains in the early stages of examining concerns regarding the lack of reproducible findings as well as the questionable research practices and incentive structures that may contribute to replication failures. Much of this conversation has taken place within the sub-disciplines of social and cognitive psychology in particular, while clinical scientists have been largely absent or insulated from the discourse regarding the replicability crisis. This is problematic, given that clinical research is not immune from several of the problematic practices that have likely contributed to high-profile replication failures within psychological science. In line with this, Tackett and colleagues (2017) issued a call to clinical scientists in Perspectives on Psychological Science to join in this discussion, and argue that the perspective of clinical science will be essential for improving the scientific quality of psychological research via open science models. This presentation will provide an overview of the key points raised by Tackett et al. (2017) along with comments regarding the use of questionable research practices and their ties to particular incentive structures within the scientific enterprise. This information will serve as the basis for a group discussion regarding the practices we as a program can adopt and use to ensure the quality and reproducibility of our own work.