On 2015 May 27, Timothy Shakespeare commented:

Despite not being an expert in the field, I read this paper with interest. It seems that the definition of dyslexia is a difficult subject, and I wondered what the justification was for the definition of severe reading impairment including <level 4 KS2 in Science or English. Am I correct in thinking that this would put someone with very poor reading, but good science and English in the normally developing group? Is this the case, and if so, how many people are in that category and does that fit with other definitions of dyslexia? Also, in the online version there are typos in the inclusion criteria "Children who achieved scores <2 SD below the mean" should be >2SD below the mean (as it is in the abstract).

Finally, the discussion draws conclusions about the implications of this study for use of visual aids. This has been taken by some to mean this study provides evidence that coloured overlays don't work for people with dyslexia, but I am interested in whether 1) it leaves open the possibility that a subsection of people with dyslexia (e.g. those who describe words moving on page) could benefit whilst others don't and 2) coloured overlays could possibly have an effect on higher order visual processing that was not tested or shown to be normal in this study. There doesn't seem to be a strong evidence base for these interventions, but it's not clear whether that's absence of evidence or evidence of absence.

On 2015 May 27, Timothy Shakespeare commented:

Despite not being an expert in the field, I read this paper with interest. It seems that the definition of dyslexia is a difficult subject, and I wondered what the justification was for the definition of severe reading impairment including <level 4 KS2 in Science or English. Am I correct in thinking that this would put someone with very poor reading, but good science and English in the normally developing group? Is this the case, and if so, how many people are in that category and does that fit with other definitions of dyslexia? Also, in the online version there are typos in the inclusion criteria "Children who achieved scores <2 SD below the mean" should be >2SD below the mean (as it is in the abstract).

Finally, the discussion draws conclusions about the implications of this study for use of visual aids. This has been taken by some to mean this study provides evidence that coloured overlays don't work for people with dyslexia, but I am interested in whether 1) it leaves open the possibility that a subsection of people with dyslexia (e.g. those who describe words moving on page) could benefit whilst others don't and 2) coloured overlays could possibly have an effect on higher order visual processing that was not tested or shown to be normal in this study. There doesn't seem to be a strong evidence base for these interventions, but it's not clear whether that's absence of evidence or evidence of absence.