Reports an error in "What limitations are reported in short articles in social and personality psychology" by Beth Clarke, Sarah Schiavone and Simine Vazire (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2023[Oct], Vol 125[4], 874-901). The following article is being corrected: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000458. The percentages in the seventh sentence in the abstract now appear as 41% and 20%, respectively. The online version of this article has been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2023-58369-001.) Every research project has limitations. The limitations that authors acknowledge in their articles offer a glimpse into some of the concerns that occupy a field's attention. We examine the types of limitations authors discuss in their published articles by categorizing them according to the four validities framework and investigate whether the field's attention to each of the four validities has shifted from 2010 to 2020. We selected one journal in social and personality psychology (Social Psychological and Personality Science; SPPS), the subfield most in the crosshairs of psychology's replication crisis. We sampled 440 articles (with half of those articles containing a subsection explicitly addressing limitations), and we identified and categorized 831 limitations across the 440 articles. Articles with limitations sections reported more limitations than those without (avg. 2.6 vs. 1.2 limitations per article). Threats to external validity were the most common type of reported limitation (est. 52% of articles), and threats to statistical conclusion validity were the least common (est. 17% of articles). Authors reported slightly more limitations over time. Despite the extensive attention paid to statistical conclusion validity in the scientific discourse throughout psychology's credibility revolution, our results suggest that concerns about statistics-related issues were not reflected in social and personality psychologists' reported limitations. The high prevalence of limitations concerning external validity might suggest it is time that we improve our practices in this area, rather than apologizing for these limitations after the fact. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

克拉克等人对“社会和人格心理学短文中报告的局限性”的更正。 （2023）。


报告 Beth Clarke、Sarah Schiavone 和 Simine Vazire 所著的“社会和人格心理学短文中报告的局限性”中的错误（人格与社会心理学杂志，2023 年[10 月]，第 125 卷[4]，874-901） 。以下文章正在更正：https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000458。摘要第七句中的百分比现在分别显示为 41% 和 20%。本文的网络版本已更正。 （以下原始文章摘要出现在记录 2023-58369-001 中。）每个研究项目都有局限性。作者在文章中承认的局限性让我们得以一窥该领域关注的一些问题。我们根据四种有效性框架对作者在其发表的文章中讨论的限制类型进行分类，并调查该领域对四种有效性的关注是否从 2010 年到 2020 年发生了变化。我们选择了一本关于社会和人格心理学的期刊（社会心理学和人格科学；SPPS），是心理学复制危机中最受关注的子领域。我们抽取了 440 篇文章（其中一半的文章包含明确解决限制的小节），并在 440 篇文章中识别并分类了 831 项限制。有限制部分的文章比没有限制部分的文章报告的限制更多（每篇文章平均 2.6 个限制与 1.2 个限制）。对外部有效性的威胁是最常见的报告限制类型（估计占文章的 52%），对统计结论有效性的威胁是最不常见的（估计占文章的 17%）。随着时间的推移，作者报告了更多的限制。 尽管在整个心理学的可信度革命中，科学话语中统计结论的有效性受到广泛关注，但我们的结果表明，对统计相关问题的担忧并未反映在社会和人格心理学家报告的局限性中。外部效度方面的局限性普遍存在，这可能表明我们是时候改进这一领域的实践了，而不是在事后为这些局限性道歉。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。