Search

The importance of reporting effect sizes (ESs) in quantitative empirical studies has been emphasized in the literature. However, no published study to date has shed light on current ES reporting practices in Taiwanese psychology and education journals. To fill this gap, the present study systematically reviewed 268 articles published in eight Taiwanese psychology journals and nine education journals during 2017 and 2018. All of these 17 journals were highly ranked in their respective fields. Four aspects of ES reporting practices were investigated: (A) the ES reporting rate, (B) the ES type, (C) the ES interpretation, and (D) the resolution of discrepancies between the ES magnitude and statistical significance. The results revealed that 72% of articles reported at least one ES, and more than 65% of ESs reported were the r-type, such as Pearson’s r and (...). Of the studies that reported ESs, 55% also interpreted the ESs. More than 80% of these interpretations were the mere labeling of an ES as small, medium, or large, according to established benchmarks. Approximately 50% of the articles showed a discrepancy between the magnitude of an ES and its corresponding statistical significance, but only 35% of these articles attempted to explain or resolve the discrepancy. When the data for psychology and education articles were analyzed separately, the psychology articles exhibited a lower rate of both ES reporting and ES interpretation by labeling. In sum, the majority of articles reported at least one ES, but few interpreted ES fully or meaningfully. To assist authors with a full and meaningful ES reporting, we offer five suggestions and one exemplary ES reporting in the Extended Abstract. It is hoped that this paper contributes to an increased practice of meaningfully reporting ES(s) in empirical quantitative studies in Taiwan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]