Dear Dr. S. Heller,

Attached please the revised manuscript " A Group-Decision Approach for Evaluating Educational Web Sites" submitted to computers & Education for possible publication. A file containing the revision summary is also attached. Your acknowledgement will be highly appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours

Gwo-Jen Hwang

Information Management Department

National Chi Nan University

Pu-Li, Nan-Tou, Taiwan 545, R.O.C.

FAX: 886-940503178

TEL: 886-915396558

Resp*****e to Reviewers and Editor

Paper#: SMCC-03-06-0056

Title: On the Development of a Computer-Assisted Testing System with Genetic Test Sheet-Generating Approach

[Reviewer 1 Comments]:

____ The paper should be shortened.

[Resp*****e to Reviewer 1]:

The paper has been shortened to 24 pages by removing some redundant descripti***** of genetic models and algorithms; moreover, Secti***** 3 and 4 have been re-written to condense the entire paper.

[Reviewer 2 Comments]:

No innovative contribution was found both in the theory of genetic algorithms and in the application of them.

[Resp*****e to Reviewer 2]:

(1)_We have re-written the abstract and Secti***** 1 and 2 to explain the importance about the c*****truction of a good test sheet. The major contribution of this paper is not in its technical part. Instead, we tried to cope with an important problem arising from real educational applicati*****. Such a problem is known to be critical and has not been efficiently and effectively solved before.

(2)_Since the innovative contribution of this paper might not be significant, we have re-written the paper as a technical correspondence based on the editor's suggestion.

[Reviewer 3 Comments]:

Make the definiti*****, formulas, and other descripti***** clearer and more precise, so that the revised paper will be improved in its readability and correctness.

[Resp*****e to Reviewer 3]:

Te mixed integer models and the genetic algorithms in Secti***** 3 and 4 have been re-written to make the definiti*****, formulas, and other descripti***** clearer and more precise (please refer to Pages 6-17). Moreover, a colleague who is an English expert has carefully checked the paper to correct potential g*****matical errors.

Reviewer's report

Title: A survey of visual function in an Austrian population of school-age children

with reading and writing difficulties

Version: 3 Date: 23 December 2009

Reviewer: Elizabeth G Conlon

Reviewer's report:

This is an interesting paper with an impressive sample size. This paper reports that many children who have some difficulties reading also have visual difficulties in a number of optometric functions. It concludes importantly that these types of difficulties can contribute to the educational difficulties in reading and writing experienced by these children.

While I would like to see this work published there are a number of issues that

need to be addressed to streamline and strengthen the paper. These are all

compulsory revisions for this manuscript.

I am writing this review from the perspective of a dyslexia researcher who

specialised in visual perceptual processing in reading and reading disability. As such I cannot directly comment on the methodology of the optometric tests.

The authors are pleased that this reviewer feels that the manuscript draws important conclusions.  We are very grateful to the review for her helpful comments regarding the manuscript and we feel that the suggested changes have improved the standard of the paper significantly.  Please find below details of how each point has been fully addressed.   

1. A question that has produced major controversy in the area of visual processes in reading and dyslexia is the co-occurrence of the visual perceptual difficulty referred to as visual stress, visual discomfort, or Meares-Irlen Syndrome. Many of the types of difficulty found in the clinic sample are similar to the types of difficulties reported by individuals with that particular anomaly. This manuscript would be considerably strengthened by some discussion of this anomaly and how the optometric difficulties found in the sample may explain a number of the difficulties reported. This would increase the relevance of the findings to the wider research on visual processes in reading. Interestingly individuals with visual stress have a slow reading rate, but few phonological difficulties which separates these persons from others with dyslexia. (Some individuals do have both types of difficulty. A proportion of the visual perceptual difficulties may be partially or fully explained by undiagnosed optometric difficulties.)

Information regarding visual stress has been added to both the introduction and discussion. The authors agree that this has strengthened the manuscript. 

Specific comments.

2. Methods/results section from abstract. Simply writing statistical analysis was conducted is not explanatory. Independent groups t-tests and chi-square

analyses were predominantly conducted.

The types of statistical tests used have now been included in the abstract. 

3. Results in abstract. Lower reading speed, should be slower reading speed.

(discretionary)

This has now been amended.