Positive Psychology Interventions to Increase Self-Esteem, Self-Efficacy, and Confidence and Decrease Anxiety among Students with Dyslexia: A Narrative Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presented is a review of the research regarding the evidence of PPIs to assist students with dyslexia in self-esteem, self-efficacy, and confidence. The prevalence of dyslexia needs to be more clearly articulated, such as that this is for the UK or cross-list references that show data from an international database. It would also be helpful for the authors to use researchers in the area of dyslexia as the reference for specific reading-related tasks (line 32). Lines 42-44 define an assumption, but there is no consideration of that in the US; for example, students are responsible for seeking assistance as adults, unlike in the k-12 system where there was a child find clause to help children.

The paper can add to the literature but must be designed for ease of reading, flow, and generalization to other researchers. First, it would be helpful if the readers provided a framework for grade levels as those differ across countries. Next, it would be beneficial for a table of the six studies to be included so the reader can see how they are alike and different. This would help the reader understand how the authors develop themes when the studies are across a wide span of ages. It is difficult to make any judgments regarding PPIs when there are so few studies, and those studies do not align with grades, gender, etc. The authors should go more in-depth to help build their case for their themes and conclusions.

Finally, the paper must be edited to adhere to a writing style guide.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for reviewing our article and for the constructive feedback. We have addressed your comments, please see the table below.

 

Corrections	Feedback / Comments	Addressed / Line numbers
1	The prevalence of dyslexia needs to be more clearly articulated, such as that this is for the UK or cross-list references that show data from an international database.	Thank you, we have broken down the prevalence rates more clearly and indicated why there might be a significant variability in reported rates.  (Lines 43-56)
2	It would also be helpful for the authors to use researchers in the area of dyslexia as the reference for specific reading-related tasks (line 32).	We have expanded this section and included additional references which demonstrate poorer performance on tasks that require phonological skills, nonphonological skills, auditory processing and working memory.  (Lines 39-42).
3	Lines 42-44 define an assumption, but there is no consideration of that in the US; for example, students are responsible for seeking assistance as adults, unlike in the k-12 system where there was a child find clause to help children.	This has been removed and we have added other considerations, such as diagnostic criteria and general underdiagnosis of dyslexia, to explain the variability of reported prevalence rates. (Lines 43-56)
4	The paper can add to the literature but must be designed for ease of reading, flow, and generalization to other researchers.	Thank you, we have addressed this. Additionally, a table (Table 2) outlining the included studies. (Line 596)
5	First, it would be helpful if the readers provided a framework for grade levels as those differ across countries.	Thank you. Included in line 588 (Table 3)
6	Next, it would be beneficial for a table of the six studies to be included so the reader can see how they are alike and different.	Included in Table 2.
7	This would help the reader understand how the authors develop themes when the studies are across a wide span of ages	An overview of how the themes have been developed has been added to the methods (Lines 123 – 134).
8	It is difficult to make any judgments regarding PPIs when there are so few studies, and those studies do not align with grades, gender, etc	Two tables have been created:   Grades and countries (Table 3) The information about the studies (Table 2).
9	The authors should go more in-depth to help build their case for their themes and conclusions.	Thank you. The conclusion has been rewritten (Lines 543-551)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the authors

This manuscript focuses on a narrative review of previous studies examining the effectiveness of positive psychology interventions in individuals with dyslexia.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I think this manuscript has potential to contribute to the literature in several ways, especially around dyslexia and mental health support.

The abstract provided a very clear overview of this study, its aims, characteristics, processes, as well as key findings. It was an excellent starting point for this manuscript.

Introduction

The details around PPIs are well-structured and some clear details have been presented around the various interventions that could be part of PPIs.

I think it is important to distinguish the difference between the terms ‘mental health’ and ‘poor mental health’ or ‘mental health conditions’. Further details are needed to outline the literature around the links between dyslexia status and poor mental health outcomes. I don’t know enough evidence has been presented in this section to help get the reader on board with the need for this review.

It would be great if the rationale for this study can be presented in a bit more detail in order to support the purpose of this study.

 

Methods

The methodology and method for this study have been outlined clearly, especially the criteria and steps followed for the selection of eligible articles for the review.

However, I think that some details around narrative synthesis are needed as that would help the reader understand better the results section.

 

Results

The details for each included article are clear and they are particularly helpful in communicating the remaining findings, but I think these could be presented instead in the Methods section, as part of the key characteristics of the included articles.

 

Discussion

This section is very long with some paragraphs being particularly long and the length made them difficult to read (see lines 403 to 445, and 532 to 583).

I think that the first couple of paragraphs that mainly summarised what was mentioned in the Results section were not effective use of this section. However, the parts that synthesised and discussed the findings across the six studies and with other literature were very relevant, but more of these arguments would have been highly beneficial across this whole section.

 

Future Research and Directions

 I think this section too could benefit from some paragraph breaks.

The details presented are relevant and the recommendations included are in line with the findings of this study.

 

Conclusions

I don’t think this is a particularly impactful section, as there is again specific mention of the six studies included in the review. I would recommend significant editing to help highlight the core key messages from this narrative review, instead of focusing on the specific studies.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Typos and other edits:

The formatting of citations in the whole manuscript requires significant editing as some citations have the appropriate formatting with the numbers within square brackets but then are immediately followed by citations in a different format (see for example lines 32-33 and line 35 where instead of (2022), the number of the source should be noted instead). As a result, some sources are missing completely from the reference list, so this needs to be amended. The referencing guidance on the MDPI can be very helpful with that.

I would also recommend a careful proofing, as punctuation seems to be missing at several parts of the manuscript.

I would also recommend revising the length of several paragraphs within the manuscript (I have included some examples in my comments for the relevant sections).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for reviewing our article and for the constructive feedback. We have addressed your comment, please see the table below.

 

10	Introduction  I think it is important to distinguish the difference between the terms ‘mental health’ and ‘poor mental health’ or ‘mental health conditions’.	We prefer using mental health rather than mental ill-health, as mental health is a non-judgmental term. So, poor mental health refers to mentally ill; difficulties with mental health, e.g., anxiety, which we’ve discussed in relation to Dyslexia in Introduction. Mental health conditions refer to mental health diagnoses, such as depression, and anxiety (Line 70).
10.1	Further details are needed to outline the literature around the links between dyslexia status and poor mental health outcomes. I don’t know enough evidence has been presented in this section to help get the reader on board with the need for this review.	An additional explanation on the link between mental health and dyslexia has been included in the introduction (lines 36- 69)
11	It would be great if the rationale for this study can be presented in a bit more detail in order to support the purpose of this study.	Thank you. The purpose of the review has been added to the ‘why it is important to do this review. (lines 98-114).
12	Methods  However, I think that some details around narrative synthesis are needed as that would help the reader understand better the results section.	Further detail around the narrative synthesis has been added in lines 123-134.
13	Results  The details for each included article are clear and they are particularly helpful in communicating the remaining findings, but I think these could be presented instead in the Methods section, as part of the key characteristics of the included articles.	Table 2 includes the key characteristics the selected articles.
14	Discussion  This section is very long with some paragraphs being particularly long and the length made them difficult to read (see lines 403 to 445, and 532 to 583).	Re-written, broken up and some more references added to drive key arguments to the paragraphs.
15	I think that the first couple of paragraphs that mainly summarised what was mentioned in the Results section were not effective use of this section. However, the parts that synthesised and discussed the findings across the six studies and with other literature were very relevant, but more of these arguments would have been highly beneficial across this whole section.	Thank you for the comment. Some of the discussion has been re-written and further detail added in the discussion.
16	Future Research and Directions   I think this section too could benefit from some paragraph breaks.	The text has been broken up into paragraphs (Lines 519-542)
17	Conclusions  I don’t think this is a particularly impactful section, as there is again specific mention of the six studies included in the review. I would recommend significant editing to help highlight the core key messages from this narrative review, instead of focusing on the specific studies.	The conclusion has been rewritten, it is now shorter and more focused.  (Lines 544-552)
	Typos and other edits:  The formatting of citations in the whole manuscript requires significant editing as some citations have the appropriate formatting with the numbers within square brackets but then are immediately followed by citations in a different format (see for example lines 32-33 and line 35 where instead of (2022), the number of the source should be noted instead). As a result, some sources are missing completely from the reference list, so this needs to be amended. The referencing guidance on the MDPI can be very helpful with that.	The citations and references have been checked throughout.
	I would also recommend a careful proofing, as punctuation seems to be missing at several parts of the manuscript.	Thank you. It has been checked.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for attending the issues raised in the initial review.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the authors

I would like to thank the authors for their hard work in revising this manuscript. It is on a very interesting and important field, so I am glad that they have continued working on publishing their findings. I really appreciate the detailed responses to my comments on the first version and I am happy with all the changes that have been made. I am looking forward to reading the final version when it is published.