Background: The statistical reform movement and the American Psychological Association (APA) defend the use of estimators of the effect size and its confidence intervals, as well as the interpretation of the clinical significance of the findings.
Method: A survey was conducted in which academic psychologists were asked about their behavior in designing and carrying out their studies. The sample was composed of 472 participants (45.8% men). The mean number of years as a university professor was 13.56 years (SD= 9.27).
Results: The use of effect-size estimators is becoming generalized, as well as the consideration of meta-analytic studies. However, several inadequate practices still persist. A traditional model of methodological behavior based on statistical significance tests is maintained, based on the predominance of Cohen’s d and the unadjusted R2/η2, which are not immune to outliers or departure from normality and the violations of statistical assumptions, and the under-reporting of confidence intervals of effect-size statistics.
Conclusion: The paper concludes with recommendations for improving statistical practice.