The present study was conducted to characterize (a) the features of the thousands of primary reports synthesized in 47 reliability generalization (RG) measurement meta-analysis studies and (b) typical methodological practice within the RG literature to date. With respect to the treatment of score reliability in the literature, in an astounding 54.6% of the 12,994 primary reports authors did not even mention reliability! Furthermore, in 15.7% of the primary reports authors did mention score reliability, but merely inducted previously reported values as if they applied to their data. Clearly, the admonitions of Wilkinson and the APA Task Force (1999) have yet to have their desired impacts with respect to reporting reliability estimates for one's own data.