At least twenty-three journals in the social sciences purportedly require authors to report effect sizes and, to a much lesser extent, confidence intervals; yet these requirements are rarely clear in the information for contributors. This article reviews some of the literature criticizing the exclusive use of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) and briefly highlights the state of NHST reporting in social science journals, including Human Resource Development Quarterly. Included are an overview of effect sizes and confidence intervals--their definitions, a brief historical review, and an argument regarding their importance. The article concludes with recommendations for changing the culture of quantitative research within human resource development (HRD) to more systematically reporting effect sizes and confidence intervals as supplements to NHST findings.