I have covered this in depth in various parts of The Dyslexia Debate (Elliott & Grigorenko, 2014)

I also enclose one extract from this book <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

"Perhaps the most widely known current form of visual intervention is that relating to scotopic sensitivity syndrome (Meares-Irlen syndrome). Treatment typically involves the use of individually prescribed colored lenses designed to reduce visual stress and so increase reading speed. While such lenses have been widely promoted as a 'cure' for dyslexia, advocates of this technology such as Wilkins (2003) and Singleton (Singleton, 2009a, 2009b, 2012) have emphasised that resolving the primary problems of reading disability is not an appropriate aim for such treatments. For Singleton, visual stress is likely to be a disorder that is often found to be comorbid with dyslexia; these having a multiplicative detrimental effect upon reading performance. Those who struggle with reading may be more susceptible to visual stress, perhaps because they typically need to focus upon the visual components of the text more than do skilled readers (Shovman & Ahissar, 2006). For this reason, Wilkins (2012) and Singleton (2012) both contend that those who are susceptible to visual stress (whether reading disabled or not) can be helped to make the reading process less uncomfortable and this should lead to gains in reading speed. 

Research has failed to show a clear causal relationship between the use of colored lenses or overlays and reading gains, although attempts to evaluate such tools (e.g. Cardona et al., 2010) have not been helped by poor design and methodological flaws (Hyatt, et al., 2009; Parker, 1990; Zane, 2005). Particular concerns in this respect include the use of anecdotal reports, poor controls, failure to determine equivalence of groups at the pre-test phase, potential researcher bias, inappropriate measurement metrics and statistical analyses, and likely placebo effects.

A systematic review of the literature on the use of colored lenses for reading difficulty (Albon, Adi, & Hyde, 2008) found that more than half of the 23 studies identified were hampered by severe methodological weaknesses. The review concluded that there was '...no convincing evidence' (p. 93) to support the argument that colored filters could improve the reading ability of dyslexic children. A subsequent, more rigorously designed, intervention study, examining the effects of Irlen filters with children of below average reading ability (Ritchie et al., 2011, 2012) also found little evidence to support their value for reading progress. This was the case at both the end of an initial trial period and, then again, at one year follow up.  Similarly, a study of university students with dyslexia (Henderson, Tsogda, & Snowling, 2013) also found no differences in improvement in reading rate or comprehension of connected text in comparison with controls, when both groups were provided with coloured overlays. Reviews by McIntosh and Ritchie (2012) and Hyatt, et al. (2009) have both concluded that the efficacy of this approach has yet to be demonstrated. 

In 2009, a joint statement was provided on dyslexia and vision by a group of U.S. medical associations: the American Academy of Pediatrics, Section on Ophthalmology, the Council on Children with Disabilities, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus and the American Association of Certified Orthoptists. This stated that various forms of vision therapy for dyslexia were not supported by the available evidence. The statement resulted in a rebuttal by an optometrist, Lack (2010), which fiercely criticised the statement's "...false, confusing and contradictory statements" (p. 540). The debate served to highlight ongoing professional disagreements between medical (opthalmologists) and other vision professionals (optometrists) about the appropriateness of vision-based interventions for learning disabilities. 

The American Academy of Pediatrics' 2009 statement was subsequently updated in a joint technical report produced by these same medical academies (Handler, et al., 2011). Taking a similar stance as before, the report endorsed the view that various forms of vision therapy for dyslexics had not been scientifically validated:

"Scientific evidence does not support the claims that visual training, muscle exercises, ocular pursuit-and tracking exercises, behavioral/perceptual vision therapy, training glasses, prisms, IN RELATION TO THE FORUM DISCSSION, PLEASE NOTE THIS HERE and colored lenses and filters are effective direct or indirect treatments for learning disabilities. There is no evidence that children who participate in vision therapy are more responsive to educational instruction than those who do not participate. The reported benefits of vision therapy, including nonspecific gains in reading ability, can often be explained by the placebo effect, increased time and attention given to students who are poor readers, maturation changes, or the traditional remedial techniques with which they are usually combined" (p. e847)."

NOT IN THE BOOK BECAUSE THIS CAME AFTER ITS PUBLICATION.....ADDITIONALLY IN THE UK.....

The Royal College of Opthalmologists has argued that ".manipulation of the visual system using colour to facilitate reading lacks scientific support". 

In consequence, a recent editorial in the BMJ (Aug, 2014) has called upon dyslexia charities to desist in providing an inaccurate view of the evidence.

Hope this is of interest to Forum members


Julian (Joe) Elliott, FAcSS., B.Ed., B.A., M.A., M.Sc., PhD., C.Psychol. A.F.B.Ps.S.
Principal of Collingwood College
Professor of Education
Durham University
South Road
Durham DH1 3LT
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 191 334 5000
email: [log in to unmask]
http://www.dur.ac.uk/education/staff/?id=2004

Recent publications on dyslexia:
Elliott, J.G. & Resing, W.C.M. (2015).Can intelligence testing inform educational intervention for children with reading disability?, Journal of Intelligence, 3(4), 137-157.
http://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/3/4/137
Elliott, J.G. & Grigorenko, E.L. (2014). The Dyslexia Debate. New York. Cambridge University Press
Elliott, J.G. & Grigorenko, E.L. (2014). The End of Dyslexia? The Psychologist, 27(8), 576-580.
Elliott, J.G. (2015). The Dyslexia Debate: Actions, reactions, and over-reactions. Psychology of Education Review, 39(1), 6-16. 
Elliott, J.G. (2015).  https://theconversation.com/special-exam-arrangements-for-dyslexia-veering-out-of-control-43298

Information on the Dyslexia Debate:
The Dyslexia Debate Brief






-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Hill
Sent: 03 February 2016 10:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: scotopic sensitivity

Hi

I just followed up on Joe's email and read the following:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/128/4/e932

Intriguing stuff - and it is not new. I wonder if the likes of the Irlen Institute have countered this.

Regards

Peter Hill
------------------------


On 03/02/2016 09:29, ELLIOTT J.G.C. wrote:
> I think that you should be mindful of the American Pediatric Association and the BMJ position on this issue, however.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 3 Feb 2016, at 09:20, Dr Lesley Jane Black <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all
>> I have a colleague who requires a scotopic sensitivity assessment. We are struggling to source a local provider in Hampshire. We are aware of Rex Wingate but for a variety of reasons we cannot use his service for this member of staff.
>>
>> If you are aware of anyone qualified to diagnose and assess scotopic sensitivity/Irlen's syndrome in Hampshire or if outwith the county within reasonable travelling distance of Southampton.
>>
>> many thanks in advance,
>> Lesley
>>
>> Dr Lesley Black
>> Head of Wellbeing
>> University of Winchester

--
Peter Hill

DSA Needs Assessor

[log in to unmask]
Tel: 01299 878747
Mobile: 07751 792711