A case for translation from the clinic to the laboratory

One reason for the gap between experimental and clinical research is a failure to focus on translation from the clinic to the laboratory.

Article Abstract

“Laboratory procedures have been used for decades as analogues for clinical processes with the goal of improving our understanding of psychological treatments for emotional disorders and identifying strategies to make treatments more effective. This research has often focused on translation from the laboratory to the clinic. Although this approach has notable successes, it has not been seamless. There are many examples of strategies that work in the laboratory that fail to lead to improved outcomes when applied clinically. One possible reason for this gap between experimental and clinical research is a failure to focus on translation from the clinic to the laboratory. Here, we discuss potential benefits of translation from the clinic to the laboratory and provide examples of how this might be implemented. We first consider two well-established laboratory analogues (extinction and cognitive reappraisal), identify critical aspects of the related clinical procedures (exposure and cognitive restructuring) that are missing from these analogues, and propose variations to better capture the clinical process. Second, we discuss two clinical procedures that have more recently been brought into the laboratory (eye-movement desensitization and reprocessing and imagery rescripting). We conclude by highlighting potential implications of this proposed shift in focus for translational research.”

—Description from publisher

Article Access

Purchase/Subscription Required

Kredlow, M. A., de Voogd, L. D., & Phelps, E. A. (2022). A case for translation from the clinic to the laboratory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, online. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F17456916211039852

About the Journal

“Perspectives on Psychological Science publishes an eclectic mix of provocative reports and articles, including broad integrative reviews, overviews of research programs, meta-analyses, theoretical statements, book reviews, and articles on topics such as the philosophy of science, opinion pieces about major issues in the field, autobiographical reflections of senior members of the field, and even occasional humorous essays and sketches.”

—Description from publisher