Yes! My two top peeves with the majority of soft-science research are underpowered studies (and associated false conclusions) and a seemingly total neglect of effect size. The binary question 'is an intervention better?' is not the right question. To discuss any medical, social, policy, etc intervention you need to know how much benefit it delivers. This can then be assessed compared to costs and difficulties of the intervention.
Of course, effect size isn't enough either. You still need a good understanding of the range of outcomes, if there are significant fraction of participants who had poor/negative outcomes, etc. This can be hidden a bit inside a single metric like effect size.
Of course, effect size isn't enough either. You still need a good understanding of the range of outcomes, if there are significant fraction of participants who had poor/negative outcomes, etc. This can be hidden a bit inside a single metric like effect size.