Validation of a Web App Enabling Children with Dyslexia to Identify Personalized Visual and Auditory Parameters Facilitating Online Text Reading

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to MTI.

 

Abstract

 

The abstract is clear and helpful.

 

1. Introduction

 

The introduction progresses well, from a detailed description of developmental dyslexia (DD) through to recent approaches concerning the use of technology. In the interests of full disclosure, it should be stated that one of the authors is a representative of the Seleggo Onlus organisation.

 

2. Materials and Methods

 

The rationale for dividing participants into TD and AD groups could be better supported. Of the 78 participants, 49 had been diagnosed AD. Although the overall criteria for participant selection are clearly set out, it should be explained whether this (62%) AD proportion constituted, for example, an opportunity, convenience or stratified/representative sample of the population of DD students. Reasons for choosing the Seleggio Test should also be provided.

 

The procedures for test administration, data collection, validation and analysis appear sound and are clearly detailed. 

 

3. Results

 

The complex results are presented in a systematic manner. Tabular results are well presented and have been effectively discussed. It would be helpful to provide reasons supporting choice of the various statistical tests employed (chi-square, Lambda, Goodman & Kruskal tau, Somers' D, Wilcoxon Z).

 

4. Discussion

 

The findings are discussed clearly and in relation to the reviewed literature.

 

5. Conclusions

 

This section – of only two sentences – is disappointingly brief. It could usefully have discussed methodological limitations of the study and ways in which follow-up research might be designed. It should certainly set out recommendations for practice, as the purpose of an article of this nature is to inform an international readership of practitioners operating in different languages.

 

Author Contributions

 

These should be stated as recommended in the journal's guidance.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, the authors develop a procedure for customizing reading parameters for atypical readers and present the results of their tests on a population of typical and atypical readers. Their results support their hypothesis concerning the value of personalizing reading parameters rather than adopting a systematic approach for all. The article is clear and well structured.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work presents an investigation regarding the influence of some text characteristics at reading on children with dyslexia. For this purpose, a web-based tool is created that facilitates and automates this investigative procedure. The findings point out that the personalized approach is the best one in support the learning process of children with specific disorders.

The applied procedure and the performed experiments are well described. The results are discussed and analyzed.

I have several comments for paper improvement.

1. The Introduction section is too long. It is better to be divided into two sections: one should include the Introduction with an analysis of the problem, the purpose of the study main contributions, and the second section to be Related work and should be a description of the scientific achievements to date in this field.

2. The used methodology and performed experimentations also should be presented in different sections. A separate section Results also should be formed.

3. The format of Table 1 should be more compact. It is the same for Table 2. Figure 4 is not readable and it should be improved. Figure 7 and 8 are too big. The text on Figure 9 is not readable. The caption of all figures must be below them.

4. Conclusions could be extended with recommendations at designing personalized learning for children with dyslexia.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There is no problem with English language.

Author Response

Please see the Attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc