The authors provide a cautionary note on reporting accurate eta-squared values from multifactor analysis of variance (ANOVA) designs. They reinforce the distinction between classical and partial eta-squared as measures of strength of association. They provide examples from articles published in premier psychology journals in which the authors erroneously reported partial eta-squared values as representing classical eta-squared values. Finally, they discuss broader impacts of inaccurately reported eta-squared values for theory development, meta-analytic reviews, and intervention programs.