Toward improved statistical reporting in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

Philip Kendall's (1997) editorial encouraged authors in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (JCCP) to report effect sizes and clinical significance. The present authors assessed the influence of that editorial - and other American Psychological Association initiatives to improve statistical practices - by examining 239 JCCP articles published from 1993 to 2001. For analysis of variance, reporting of means and standardized effect sizes increased over that period, but the rate of effect size reporting for other types of analyses surveyed remained low. Confidence interval reporting increased little, reaching 17% in 2001. By 2001, the percentage of articles considering clinical (not only statistical) significance was 40%, compared with 36% in 1996. In a follow-up survey of JCCP authors (N = 62), many expressed positive attitudes toward statistical reform. Substantially improving statistical practices may require stricter editorial policies and further guidance for authors on reporting and interpreting measures.