Reports an error in “Psychology in extremis: Preventing problems of professional competence in dangerous practice settings” by W. Brad Johnson, Shannon J. Johnson, Glenn R. Sullivan, Bruce Bongar, Laurence Miller and Morgan T. Sammons (Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 2011[Feb], Vol 42[1], 94-104). The title and authors for the first section of the article, beginning of the first column on page 95, were inadvertently omitted. The section should have begun with the following: “In Extremis Practice: Ensuring Competence During and After Deployment to a Combat Zone,” by W. Brad Johnson and Shannon J. Johnson. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2011-04544-013.) When a psychologist provides services in a dangerous context—a work setting defined by persistent threat to the psychologist’s own personal safety and well-being—the psychologist is said to practice in extremis. Psychologists who routinely function in extremis, such as those in correctional, disaster response, military, and police psychology—among other specialties—may be at increased risk for troubling experiences such as direct or vicarious traumatization, compassion fatigue, and empathy failure. Over time, in extremis experiences may contribute to decrements in professional competence. When psychologists become aware of personal problems that interfere with their work, they must take steps to ameliorate the problem while protecting consumers. In this Focus on Ethics, we discuss the difficulty inherent in self-identifying and correcting problems of professional competence when working in a high-threat environment. Three expert commentaries further elucidate in extremis competency concerns from the perspective of disaster response, police, and military psychology. The authors provide numerous recommendations for helping psychologists to ensure ongoing competence in in extremis jobs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)