This research identifies methods for signs of visual complaints associated with stereoscopic displays. Two potential causes for contradictory results concerning these signs in previous research are hypothesized: (1) not all clinical tests are equally appropriate and (2) there is a natural variation in susceptibility amongst people with normal vision. An optometric screening differentiated participants with moderate binocular status (MBS) from those with good binocular status (GBS). In a 2 × 2 within‐subjects design (2‐D vs. 3‐D and MBS vs. GBS), a questionnaire and eight optometric tests (i.e., binocular acuity, aligning prism, fixation disparity, heterophoria, convergent and divergent fusional reserves, vergence facility, and accommodation response) were each administered before and immediately after a reading task. Results revealed that only participants with MBS in 3‐D conditions showed clinically meaningful changes in fusion range, experienced more visual discomfort, and performed worse on the reading task. Acombination of fusion range measurements and self‐report is appropriate for evaluating visual complaints of stereoscopic stills, and people with a MBS are more susceptible to visual complaints associated with stereoscopic displays. A simple measurement tool, i.e., the ratio of reading performance between 2‐D and 3‐D, to categorize people based on their binocular status is proposed.