Correction to: Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 2020; 47:70–85

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-019-09659-3

On page 73, authors added clarification to the criteria applied for counting practice elements that would eliminate an apparent discrepancy in the methods section of the manuscript. Specifically, the following text:

Only PEs that occurred in 10% or more of treatment protocols were used, consistent with previous distillation methodological studies.20,21 This cutoff was chosen to eliminate less frequently occurring PEs which may have inflated the total number of PEs within a given problem area over time.

Should be replaced with:

We display PEs that occurred in 10% or more of treatment protocols in cross-sectional analyses in Table 1, consistent with previous distillation methodological studies.21,22 This convention was chosen here because the efficiency of elements in representing the evidence base can be underrepresented when there is a large number of infrequently occurring practices. In other words, Table 1 shows the total protocols but only the “common” practice elements in the evidence base. To provide a complementary view that is more conservative regarding the efficiency of practice elements, the longitudinal analyses represented in the figures did not apply this 10% cutoff.

Additionally, on page 77, the discussion sentence that reads “Specifically, PEs that were present in 10% or more of treatment protocol meeting the study criteria were used, which may have been inadvertently influenced by the duration and amount of studies within a problem area” should be followed with this additional clarification sentence “Furthermore, the number of PEs that were present in 10% or more of treatment protocols in these two problem areas should be interpreted with caution because of the relatively small number of protocols overall.”