ArticleClinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science2026
Unique Challenges of Multidisciplinary Clinical Science: Perspectives from a Multidisciplinary Team.
Article in Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical psychological research stands to benefit greatly from collaborations that incorporate perspectives from other disciplines. However, the challenges of such collaborative efforts are immense. This commentary provides the perspectives of five frequent collaborators from distinct disciplines (clinical psychology, linguistics, affective and developmental science, vision science, and cognitive neuroscience). We outline three overarching challenges we have encountered during our collaborations: disciplinary bias (i.e., implicit and explicit beliefs about the best ways to gain knowledge), lack of multidisciplinary fluency (i.e., difficulty effectively communicating across disciplines), and inherent risk (i.e., the speculative nature and uncertain career prospects of multidisciplinary work). We then discuss potential solutions to these challenges. We hope that by sharing our experiences and insights, we can promote more productive and impactful clinical science.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.