An effect size (ES) provides valuable information regarding the magnitude of effects, with the interpretation of magnitude being the most important. Interpreting ES magnitude requires combining information from the numerical ES value and the context of the research. However, many researchers adopt popular benchmarks such as those proposed by Cohen. More recently, researchers have proposed interpreting ES magnitude relative to the distribution of observed ESs in a specific field, creating unique benchmarks for declaring effects small, medium or large. However, there is no valid rationale whatsoever for this approach. This study was carried out in two parts: (1) We identified articles that proposed the use of field-specific ES distributions to interpret magnitude (primary articles); and (2) We identified articles that cited the primary articles and classified them by year and publication type. The first type consisted of methodological papers. The second type included articles that interpreted ES magnitude using the approach proposed in the primary articles. There has been a steady increase in the number of methodological and substantial articles discussing or adopting the approach of interpreting ES magnitude by considering the distribution of observed ES in that field, even though the approach is devoid of a theoretical framework. It is hoped that this research will restrict the practice of interpreting ES magnitude relative to the distribution of ES values in a field and instead encourage researchers to interpret such by considering the specific context of the study.

Reporting and interpreting effect sizes (ESs) has been recommended by all major bodies within the field of psychology. In this systematic review, we investigated the reporting of effect sizes in six social-personality psychology journals from 2018, given that this area has been at the center of psychology's replication crisis. Our results highlight that although ES reporting is near perfect (even for follow-up tests), interpreting the magnitude of ESs, including confidence intervals for ESs, and interpreting the precision of the confidence intervals needs development.We also highlight widespread confusion regarding the interpretations of the magnitude of ESs within the context of the research.

Reporting and interpreting effect sizes has been recommended by all major bodies within the field of Psychology. In this systematic review, we investigated the reporting of ES in six Social-Personality Psychology journals from 2018, given that this area has been at the center of Psychology’s replication crisis. Our results highlight that although ES reporting is near perfect (even for follow-up tests), interpreting the magnitude of ESs, including confidence intervals for ESs, and interpreting the precision of the confidence intervals needs development. We also highlight widespread confusion regarding the interpretations of the magnitude of effect sizes within the context of the research.

An effect size (ES) provides valuable information regarding the magnitude of effects, with the interpretation of magnitude being the most important. Interpreting ES magnitude requires combining information from the numerical ES value and the context of the research. However, many researchers adopt popular benchmarks such as those proposed by Cohen. More recently, researchers have proposed interpreting ES magnitude relative to the distribution of observed ESs in a specific field, creating unique benchmarks for declaring effects small, medium or large. However, there is no valid rationale whatsoever for this approach. This study was carried out in two parts: 1) We identified articles that proposed the use of field-specific ES distributions to interpret magnitude (primary articles); and 2) We identified articles that cited the primary articles and classified them by year and publication type. The first type consisted of methodological papers. The second type included articles that interpreted ES magnitude using the approach proposed in the primary articles. There has been a steady increase in the number of methodological and substantial articles discussing or adopting the approach of interpreting ES magnitude by considering the distribution of observed ES in that field, even though the approach is devoid of a theoretical framework. It is hoped that this research will restrict the practice of interpreting ES magnitude relative to the distribution of ES values in a field and instead encourage researchers to interpret such by considering the specific context of the study.