I have now had a chance to carefully read the authors' responses to the reviewer comments and the revised manuscript. The authors have done a great job and addressed all issues that I outlined in my original review. I'm therefore happy to recommend acceptance of this Stage 1 report.
The authors have responded to my previous comments/concerns and have revised the registered report accordingly. I feel that the registered report is now ready.
DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/wm72a/?view_only=c9183786a8d849fb81ddd852ee7c5b13
I have now received reviews from two experts in the field. The reviewers are enthusiastic about the topic and research questions, but raise several issues. I believe their recommendations will help improve the clarity, replicability, and interpretation of the results.
As the reviewers highlight, these issues can be addressed in revision. I am therefore pleased to invite you to submit a revised version of this manuscript. Please include a point-by-point response to the reviewers when submitting your revised manuscript.
Please see the document attached for detailed comments.
Download the reviewThis pre-registered report has excellent development of background, hypotheses, and methods. Here are some suggestions to help improve the plan. First of all, great job on the plan to characterize the written language deficits!
1) Hypothesis 2 needs to be further explained and this reviewer recommends modifying the hypothesis to say that the correlation between writing competence and cerebral lateralization will be different between children with dyslexia and typically developing children. Specifically , the slopes of the correlations should be tested for differences between children with dyslexia and typically developing children.
2) For statistical analysis of the data section of the plan, the authors should clarify how the Bayesian approach can be used to statistically compare the cerebral lateralization between the two groups.
3) This recommends recommends adding statistical methods on how to compare the correlation slopes between the two groups using statistical software R for Hypothesis 2 (R has a nice tutorial on how to make this comparison). There should be a description on generating a scatter correlation plot for hypothesis 2 complete with regression fit lines for each group.