About JFDerry
Writer. Darwin, science & more. 4 books: Piospheres, Darwin in Scotland, Serial Killers. Current project is
THE DISSENT OF MAN. Born near London, raised near Primrose Hill and in Lincolnshire, and studied at the Universities of Bangor, York and Edinburgh for degrees in Biochemistry, Bioelectronics and Biological Computation, and a PhD in African Ecology. Mainly working in British and African universities, but also in Spain, Brussels, Mongolia and Australia, to date, publication history is mostly in academic journals, on aspects of computational biology, pastoralism and on Charles Darwin and evolution. However, also written for several national newspapers, various governments, several major record labels and independent book publishers. Fiction has appeared at the Edinburgh International Book Festival and poetry is at the Human Genre Project. Lives in Edinburgh, with partner and their two daughters.
So what level of evidence would be required for you to be persuaded that a given intervention was not effective, at least to the average recipient?
Dear Anonymous (please identify yourself if you really want an equal discussion),
It’s obvious that the study in question failed to detect the benefits reported by so many recipients; something was clearly amiss with the experiment for it not to achieve a measure of the immediate benefits reported. Part of the problem in quantifying this effect is that there are no average recipients because individual responses are specific (as a function of light wavelength and optical neurobiology, as stated above), and due care may not have been observed. Ultimately the study fails on design, because it is only testing the ability of the Irlen practitioner: sample size=1, degrees of freedom=0.
“A single trustworthy testimonial from someone who claims they have benefitted from using coloured overlays makes a mockery of any statistics that claims there is no benefit in using them. That is irrefutable.”
As the old cliché goes, the plural of anecdote is not ‘data’. Would you also make the same claim about the efficacy of acupuncture, chiropractic or homeopathy?
A cursory glance at Wikipedia reveals that it’s not just Ritchie et al. who have found no evidence for coloured overlays working:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotopic_sensitivity_syndrome#Lack_of_Scientific_Proof
But let’s not allow evidence to get in the way of assertions.
I do not claim the syndrome is a discrete condition. It may well be linked with other treatable disfunction, but that does not justify removing a way to ease the symptoms.
Okay, so you’ve got a broken leg. Here’s a cast but you’re not allowed a walking stick as well.
The only proof you need that overlays work is to ask a child, “does that help?”
(PS: There are more reliable sources of academic information than Wikipedia)
As the author of this blog suggests, there are “other factors” that were not taken into account in Ritchie’s methodology that could be factors in his lack of positive findings. Aside from a small sample size, Ritchie admitedly had over half of his subjects who suffered from “uncorrected optemetric problems.” Irlen always requires that optemetric problems first be corrected for before testing for the correct color, as color will not help problems associated with the eye (only with the brain). All those subjects should have been thrown out of the study. Second, and even more importantly, the average age of child participating in the study was around 9 years old. These were early elementary students, identified as struggling readers, who as a result had very likely failed to acquire the foundation of reading and phonics skills required for fluid reading and comprehension. Ritchie did not allow for any intervention period where children would be allowed to actually acquire reading skills now that the barrier preventing them from acquiring those skills (i.e., Irlen Syndrome) had been removed. Irlen overlays are not a replacement for reading skills and reading practice, they merely remove the distortions and discomfort that make acquiring those reading skills more difficult. The expectation that he would see immediate effects on reading fluency and comprehension from very young children who lacked basic reading skills, is where he failed most in his methodology. Other placebo controlled studies with young children have chosen alternative methodology, such as delaying treatment to a control group, while offering treatment to the test group for a specified period of time, then assessing change in reading fluency and comprehension for both groups. Ritchie’s study is not the first placebo controlled double blind experiment out there on Irlen. Given his small sample size, and flawed methodology, it does seem somewhat irresponsible as an academic researcher to make claims like he did at the end of his paper telling people to beware of the method and not to waste their money. That statement alone show’s his immaturity as a researcher. More seasoned researchers would suggest the need for further research to confirm their findings, given the long history of positive research out there that actually exists.
EdPsychPhD,
thank you for your excellently reasoned comment. The trial was undoubtedly naïve and lacked a comprehensive understanding of the associated factors. The metric was inappropriate, expecting some sudden change in ability when learning up to that point in time had been hampered by scotopic sensitivity. The concluding message is dangerously irresponsible and mean. Even if not a direct treatment, the use of overlays moderates the visual stress. Sadly, the follow up paper carries the same damning message but fails equally as it builds on the original. The work has all the signs of an inexperienced, ambitious researcher and reflects badly on the more senior academics involved, who should know better.
Anecdotal evidence is not data but at least it lays the basis for further thought. I come from a family with a large collection of so-called learning difficulties. At least four of us, myself included, are very obviously severely ADD and I have two nephews, different parents, and one niece, again a different set of parents, who are all severely dyslexic. All of them officially diagnosed and all received special tuition and other assistance in school. I myself am severely dysgraphic. I first came across color overlays in the case of my niece, who is the youngest of the people mentioned here, and I know for a fact that her reading skills improved measurably after she started using them. Now this of course proves nothing but it does suggest that the study critiqued here by J F might not be the last word on the subject.