Graphology

Graphology is the analysis of handwriting with attempt to determine someone's personality traits. No scientific evidence exists to support graphology,[1][2] and it is generally considered a pseudoscience[3][4][5][6] or scientifically questionable practice.[7] However, it has historically been considered legitimate for use in some court cases.[8] The term is sometimes incorrectly used to refer to forensic document examination, due to the fact that aspects of the latter dealing with the examination of handwritten documents are occasionally referred to as graphanalysis.

Not to be confused with Graphanalysis, the forensic examination of handwritten documents as a branch of questioned document examination.
For the linguistic study of writing systems which has sometimes been called graphology, see Graphemics.
A piece of handwriting used in graphological analysis, supposedly showing traits of "frivolity" and "triviality" in the writer

Historian Laurens Schlicht states that while graphology failed to become a scientific discipline, many experts in experimental psychology and psychiatry participated in the endeavour to study graphology within a broader, more recognized science of expression, and that "to qualify something as pseudoscience can thus easily result in an unsystematic examination of a historical constellation of knowledge production."[9] Graphology has been controversial for more than a century. Although supporters point to the anecdotal evidence of positive testimonials as a reason to use it for personality evaluation, empirical studies fail to show the validity claimed by its supporters.[1][10] It has also been rated by mental health professionals as one of the top five most discredited psychological tests.[11]

Etymology

The word "graphology" is derived from grapho- (from the Greek γραφή, "writing") and logos (from the Greek λόγος, which relates to discussion or theory).[12]

History

In 1991, Jean-Charles Gille-Maisani stated that Juan Huarte de San Juan's 1575 Examen de ingenios para las ciencias was the first book on handwriting analysis.[13][14] In American graphology, Camillo Baldi's Trattato come da una lettera missiva si conoscano la natura e qualità dello scrittore from 1622 is considered to be the first book.[15][16]

Around 1830, Jean-Hippolyte Michon became interested in handwriting analysis. He published his findings[17][18] shortly after founding Société Graphologique in 1871. The most prominent of his disciples was Jules Crépieux-Jamin who rapidly published a series of books[19][20] that were soon published in other languages.[21][22] Starting from Michon's integrative approach, Crépieux-Jamin founded a holistic approach to graphology.

Alfred Binet was convinced to conduct research into graphology from 1893 to 1907. He called it "the science of the future" despite rejection of his results by graphologists.

French Psychiatrist Joseph Rogues De Fursac combined graphology and psychiatry in a 1905 book, Les ecrits et les dessins dans les maladies mentales et nerveuses.[23]

After World War I, interest in graphology continued to spread in Europe as well as the United States. In Germany during the 1920s, Ludwig Klages founded and published his finding in Zeitschrift für Menschenkunde (Journal for the Study of Mankind). His major contribution to the field can be found in Handschrift und Charakter.[24][25]

Thea Stein Lewinson and J. Zubin modified Klage's ideas, based upon their experience working for the U.S. government, publishing their method in 1942.[26]

In 1929, Milton Bunker founded The American Grapho Analysis Society teaching graphoanalysis. This organization and its system split the American graphology world in two. Students had to choose between graphoanalysis or holistic graphology. While hard data is lacking, anecdotal accounts indicate that 10% of the members of International Graphoanalysis Society (IGAS) were expelled between 1970 and 1980.[27]

Regarding a proposed correlation between biological sex and handwriting style, a paper published by James Hartley in 1989 concluded that there was some evidence in support of this hypothesis.[28]

Professional status

Although graphology had some support in the scientific community before the mid-twentieth century, more recent research rejects the validity of graphology as a tool to assess personality and job performance.[3][29][30] Today it is considered to be a pseudoscience.[3][4][5][2][6][31] Many studies have been conducted to assess its effectiveness to predict personality and job performance. Recent studies testing the validity of using handwriting for predicting personality traits and job performance have been consistently negative.[3][29]

In a 1987 study, graphologists were unable to predict scores on the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire from writing samples from the same people.[10] In a 1988 study, graphologists were unable to predict scores on the Myers-Briggs test from writing samples from the same people.[32] A 1982 meta-analysis drawn from over 200 studies concludes that graphologists were generally unable to predict any kind of personality trait on any personality test.[33]

Measures of job performance appear similarly unrelated to the handwriting metrics of graphologists. Professional graphologists using handwriting analysis were just as ineffective as lay people at predicting performance in a 1989 study.[34] A broad literature screen by King and Koehler confirmed that dozens of studies showing the geometric aspects of graphology (slant, slope, etc.) are essentially worthless as predictors of job performance.[29]

Rowan Bayne, a British psychologist who has written several studies on graphology, summarized his view of the appeal of graphology: "[i]t's very seductive because at a very crude level someone who is neat and well behaved tends to have neat handwriting", adding that the practice is "useless... absolutely hopeless".[35] The British Psychological Society ranks graphology alongside astrology, giving them both "zero validity".[35]

Graphology was also dismissed as a pseudo-science by the skeptic James Randi in 1991.[36]

In his May 21, 2013 Skeptoid podcast episode titled "All About Graphology", scientific skeptic author Brian Dunning reports:[6]

In his book The Write Stuff, Barry Beyerstein summarized the work of Geoffrey Dean, who performed probably the most extensive literature survey of graphology ever done. Dean did a meta-analysis on some 200 studies:

Dean showed that graphologists have unequivocally failed to demonstrate any validity or reliability of their art for predicting work performance, aptitudes, or personality. Graphology thus fails according to the standards which a genuine psychological test must pass before it can ethically be released for use on the public.

Dean found that no particular school of graphology fared better than any other. In fact, no graphologist of any kind was able to show reliably better performance than untrained amateurs making guesses from the same materials. In the vast majority of studies, neither group exceeded chance expectancy.

Dunning concludes:[6]

Other divining techniques like iridology, phrenology, palmistry, and astrology also have differing schools of thought, require years of training, offer expensive certifications, and fail just as soundly when put to a scientific controlled test. Handwriting analysis does have its plausible-sounding separation from those other techniques though, and that's the whole "handwriting is brainwriting" idea — traits from the brain will be manifested in the way that it controls the muscles of the hand. Unfortunately, this is just as unscientific as the others. No amount of sciencey sounding language can make up for a technique failing when put to a scientifically controlled test.

Additional specific objections
  • The Barnum effect (the tendency to interpret vague statements as specifically meaningful) and the Dr. Fox effect[37] (the tendency for supposed experts to be validated based on likeability rather than actual skill) make it difficult to validate methods of personality testing. These phenomena describe the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. See, for example, Tallent (1958).[38] Non-individualized graphological reports give credence to this criticism.
  • Effect Size: Dean's (1992)[39][40] primary argument against the use of graphology is that the effect size is too small. Regardless of the validity of handwriting analysis, the research results imply that it is not applicable for any specific individual, but may be applicable to a group.
  • Vagueness: Some important principles of graphology are vague enough to allow significant room for a graphologist to skew interpretations to suit a subject or preconceived conclusion. For example, one of the main concepts in the theory of Ludwig Klages is form-niveau (or form-level): the overall level of originality, beauty, harmony, style, etc. of a person's handwriting—a quality that, according to Klages, can be perceived but not measured. According to this theory, the same sign has a positive or negative meaning depending on the subject's overall character and personality as revealed by the form-niveau. In practice, this can lead the graphologist to interpret signs positively or negatively depending on whether the subject has high or low social status.[41]

Approaches

Each approach to handwriting analysis has spawned several systems.

Integrative graphology focuses on strokes and their relation to personality.[42] Graphoanalysis was the most influential system in the United States, between 1929 and 2000.

Holistic graphology is based on form, movement, and use of space.[42] There are several methods that use psychographs or psychograms, specific diagrams, to analyze handwriting.[15][43]

Four academic institutions offer an accredited degree in handwriting analysis:

Vocabulary

Every system of handwriting analysis has its own vocabulary. Even though two or more systems may share the same words, the meanings of those words may be different. The technical meaning of a word used by a handwriting analyst, and the common meaning is not congruent. Resentment, for example, in common usage, means annoyance. In graphoanalysis, the term indicates a fear of imposition.[46]

In Hungary

A report by the Hungarian Parliamentary Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information says that handwriting analysis without informed consent is a privacy violation.[47]

Employment law

A 2001 advisory opinion letter from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission responded to a question regarding "whether it is legal to use an analysis of an applicant's handwriting as an employment screening tool. You also ask whether it is legal to ask the applicant's age and use of medications to allow for variants in his/her handwriting."[48] The letter advised that in this circumstance, it was illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) to ask a job applicant whether he or she is taking any medications, and also advised that asking an applicant for his or her age "allegedly to allow for variants in analyzing his/her handwriting" was not a per se violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), but could be significant evidence of age discrimination.[48] The letter also said that there was no judicial guidance on "whether a policy of excluding applicants based upon their handwriting has an adverse impact on a protected group" under the ADA, ADEA, or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[48]

Applications

Gender and handwriting

A 1991 review of the then-current literature concluded that respondents were able to predict the gender of handwriting between 57 and 78% of the time.[49] However, most of these samples, as well as subsequent studies, are based on small sample sizes that are collected nonrandomly. A much larger and more recent survey of over 3,000 participants only found a classification accuracy of 54%.[50] As statistical discrimination below 0.7 is generally considered unacceptable,[51] this indicates that most results are rather inaccurate,[52] and that variation in results observed is likely due to sampling technique and bias.[53]

The reason for this bias varies; hypotheses are that biology contributes due to average differences in fine motor skills among males and females,[49] and that differences arise from culture and gender bias.[54][55][56]

Employment profiling

A company takes a writing sample provided by an applicant, and proceeds to do a personality profile, supposedly matching the congruency of the applicant with the ideal psychological profile of employees in the position. Applicant can also malpractice in this system; they may ask someone to write on their behalf.[57]

A graphological report is meant to be used in conjunction with other tools, such as comprehensive background checks, practical demonstration or record of work skills. Graphology supporters state that it can complement but not replace traditional hiring tools.

Research in employment suitability has ranged from complete failure;[58] to guarded success.[59] The most substantial reason for not using handwriting analysis in the employment process is the absence of evidence of a direct link between handwriting analysis and various measures of job performance.[60]

The use of graphology in the hiring process has been criticized on ethical grounds[61] and on legal grounds in the United States.[62]

Psychological analysis

Graphology has been used clinically by counselors and psychotherapists. When it is used, it is generally used alongside other projective personality assessment tools, and not in isolation. It is often used within individual psychotherapy, marital counseling, or vocational counseling.[63]

Marital compatibility

In its simplest form only sexual expression and sexual response are examined. At its most complex, every aspect of an individual is examined for how it affects the other individual(s) within the relationship.[64] The theory is that after knowing and understanding how each individual in the relationship differs from every other individual in the relationship, the resulting marriage will be more enduring. With a comparative analysis receiving and non-receiving parts responses are measured.[65]

Medical diagnosis

Medical graphology is probably the most controversial branch of handwriting analysis.[66] Strictly speaking, such research is not graphology as described throughout this article but an examination of factors pertaining to motor control. Research studies have been conducted in which a detailed examination of handwriting factors, particularly timing, fluidity, and consistency of size, form, speed, and pressure are considered in the process of evaluating patients and their response to pharmacological therapeutic agents.[67] The study of these phenomena is a by-product of researchers investigating motor control processes and the interaction of nervous, anatomical, and biomechanical systems of the body.

The Vanguard Code of Ethical Practice, amongst others, prohibits medical diagnosis by those not licensed to do diagnosis in the state in which they practice.

Graphotherapy

This is the pseudoscience of changing a person's handwriting with the goal of changing features of his or her personality, or "handwriting analysis in reverse."[68] It originated in France during the 1930s, spreading to the United States in the late 1950s.[69] The purported therapy consists of a series of exercises which are similar to those taught in basic calligraphy courses, sometimes in conjunction with music or positive self-talk.

See also

Graphologists

References
  1. Driver, Russell W.; Buckley, M. Ronald; Frink, Dwight D. (April 1996). "Should We Write Off Graphology?". International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 4 (2): 78–86. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.1996.tb00062.x.
  2. Cohen, Roger (19 October 1993). "In France, It's How You Cross the t's". The New York Times.
  3. Nevo, B Scientific Aspects Of Graphology: A Handbook Springfield, IL: Thomas: 1986
  4. "Barry Beyerstein Q&A". Ask the Scientists. Scientific American Frontiers. Archived from the original on 2007-02-20. Retrieved 2008-02-22. "they simply interpret the way we form these various features on the page in much the same way ancient oracles interpreted the entrails of oxen or smoke in the air. i.e., it's a kind of magical divination or fortune telling where 'like begets like'".
  5. "BEYOND SCIENCE? Paper Personality, on season 8, episode 2". Scientific American Frontiers. Chedd-Angier Production Company. 1997–1998. PBS. Archived from the original on 2006-01-01.
  6. Dunning, Brian. "Skeptoid #363: All About Graphology". Skeptoid. Retrieved 2 September 2016.
  7. "Graphology". Encyclopædia Britannica. April 25, 2017. In general, the scientific basis for graphological interpretations of personality is questionable.
  8. Bishop, Paul (2017). Ludwig Klages and the Philosophy of Life: A Vitalist Toolkit. Routledge. p. 5. ISBN 9781138697157.
  9. Schlicht, Laurens (2020). "Graphology in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s". NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin. 28 (2): 149–179. doi:10.1007/s00048-020-00246-8. PMID 32333033.
  10. Furnham, Adrian; Gunter, Barrie (January 1987). "Graphology and personality: Another failure to validate graphological analysis". Personality and Individual Differences. 8 (3): 433–435. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(87)90045-6.
  11. Norcross, John C.; Koocher, Gerald P.; Garofalo, Ariele (2006). "Discredited psychological treatments and tests: A Delphi poll". Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 37 (5): 515–522. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.37.5.515. ISSN 1939-1323. Five tests rated by at least 25% of the experts in terms of being discredited for a specific purpose received mean scores of 4.0 or higher: Luscher Color Test, Szondi Test, handwriting analysis (graphology), Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test (for assessment of neuropsychological impairment), eneagrams, and Lowenfeld Mosaic Test
  12. "Fine Dictionary". Archived from the original on 2015-09-24. Retrieved 2014-09-22.
  13. Gille-Maisani, Jean-Charles (1991). Psicología de la Escritura [Psychology of Handwriting)]. Barcelona: Herder. ISBN 978-84-254-1705-4.
  14. Huarte, Juan (1846) [1575]. Examen de ingenios para las ciencias [Examination of inventions for the sciences] (in Spanish). Madrid: Imprenta R. Campuzano.
  15. Roman, Klara G. (1952), Handwriting: A Key to Personality (1st ed.), New York: Pantheon Books
  16. Baldi, Camillo (1622). Trattato come da una lettera missiva si conoscano la natura e qualità dello scrittore [Treatise on from a missive letter knowing the nature and quality of the writer] (in Italian). Carpi: Girolamo Vaschieri. Archived from the original on 2016-11-21. Retrieved 2016-11-12.
  17. Michon, Jean-Hippolyte (1872), Le mystéres de l'écriture, Paris{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  18. Michon, Jean-Hippolyte (1875), Systéme de graphologie, Paris{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  19. Crépieux-Jamin, Jules, Traité pratique de graphologie, étude du caractère de l'homme d'après son écriture, Paris
  20. Crépieux-Jamin, Jules, L'écriture et le caractère, Paris: 1888
  21. Crépieux-Jamin, Jules, Handwriting and Expression (First English Translation ed.), London: 1892
  22. Crépieux-Jamin, Jules (1906), Praktisches Lehrbuch der Graphologie (Fifth German ed.), Leipzig: List
  23. Fursac, Joseph Rogues de (1905). Les écrits et les dessins dans les maladies nerveuses et mentales (first publication ed.). Masson, Paris.
  24. Klages, Ludwig, Handschrift und Charakter, 1916
  25. Klages, Ludwig (1940), Handschrift und Charakter: gemeinverständlicher Abriss der graphologischen Technik (17th ed.), Barth, p. 256{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  26. Lewinson, Thea Stein; Zubin, J (1942), Handwriting analysis; a series of scales for evaluating the dynamic aspects of handwriting (1st ed.), New York: King's Crown Press, pp. xiii, 147
  27. Chimera, Mary Ann, Impact Magazine (5). {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  28. Hartley, James (January 1991). "Sex Differences in Handwriting: a comment on Spear". British Educational Research Journal. 17 (2): 141–145. doi:10.1080/0141192910170204.
  29. King, Roy N.; Koehler, Derek J. (2000). "Illusory correlations in graphological inference". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 6 (4): 336–348. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.135.8305. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.6.4.336. PMID 11218342.
  30. Lockowandt, Oskar (1976). "Present status of the investigation of handwriting psychology as a diagnostic method" (Document). American Psychological Association.
  31. Goodwin CJ (2010). Research In Psychology: Methods and Design. John Wiley & Sons. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-470-52278-3.
  32. Bayne, R.; O'Neill, F. (1988). "Handwriting and personality: A test of some expert graphologists' judgments". Guidance and Assessment Review. 4 (4): 1–3.
  33. Jennings, D. L.; Amabile, T. M.; Ross, L. (1982). "Informal covariation assessment: Data-based versus theory-based judgments". In Kahneman, Daniel; Slovic, Paul; Tversky, Amos (eds.). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press. pp. 211–238. ISBN 978-0-521-28414-1.
  34. Neter, Efrat; Ben-Shakhar, Gershon (January 1989). "The predictive validity of graphological inferences: A meta-analytic approach". Personality and Individual Differences. 10 (7): 737–745. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(89)90120-7.
  35. Duffy, Jonathan; Giles Wilson (2005-02-01). "Writing wrongs". BBC News Magazine. Archived from the original on 2012-02-24. Retrieved 2008-06-24.
  36. James Randi and a Graphologist on YouTube
  37. Ware, J E; Williams, R G (February 1975). "The Dr. Fox effect: a study of lecturer effectiveness and ratings of instruction". Academic Medicine. 50 (2): 149–156. doi:10.1097/00001888-197502000-00006. PMID 1120118.
  38. Tallent, Norman (1958). "On individualizing the psychologist's clinical evaluation". Journal of Clinical Psychology. 14 (3): 243–244. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(195807)14:3<243::aid-jclp2270140307>3.0.co;2-a. PMID 13549608.
  39. Dean, Geoffrey A., "The Bottom Line: Effect Size", In Beyerstein & Beyerstein (1992): 269–341
  40. Beyerstein, Barry L.; Beyerstein, Dale F. (1992), The Write Stuff: Evaluation of Graphology - The Study of handwriting Analysis (1st ed.), Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, ISBN 978-0-87975-612-3
  41. Ulfried Geuter, The Professionalization of Psychology in Nazi Germany, pp. 95–96. Cambridge University Press, 1992.
  42. Carter, Molly. "Handwriting Analysis and the Secrets of Graphology". Sciences 360. Helium, Inc. Archived from the original on 2014-07-04. Retrieved 2014-09-22.
  43. Anthony, Daniel S. (1983) [1964], The Graphological Psychogram: Psychological meanings of its Sectors; Symbolic Interpretation of its Graphic Indicators (Revised ed.), Fort Lauderdale, FL; New York NY{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  44. "Instituto Superior Emerson" [Emerson Higher Institute]. Grafología Emerson (in Spanish). 2016. Archived from the original on 2016-11-12. Retrieved 2016-11-12.
  45. "Grafologia" [Graphology]. Centro de Estudios Superiores (in Spanish). 2016. Archived from the original on 2016-11-06. Retrieved 2016-11-12.
  46. IGAS Department of Instruction (1984), The Encyclopedic Dictionary for Graphoanalysts (3rd ed.), Chicago, IL: International Graphoanalysis Society
  47. Péterfalvi, Attila (16 March 2004). "Overview of the Data Protection Commissioner's investigation into the tender for the notary position of the city of Nagymaros". Hungarian Parliamentary Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information. Archived from the original on 9 January 2010. Retrieved 2008-06-21. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  48. Johnston, Dianna B. (28 February 2001), Title VII: Disparate Impact, Handwriting Analysis, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, archived from the original on 22 January 2019, retrieved 4 March 2020
  49. Hartley, James (1991). "Sex Differences in Handwriting: A comment on Spear". British Educational Research Journal. 17 (2): 141–145. doi:10.1080/0141192910170204.
  50. "Identifying gender by handwriting — you're probably not as good at it as you think". Archived from the original on 2020-08-10. Retrieved 2020-09-17.
  51. Mandrekar, Jayawant N. (1 September 2010). "Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve in Diagnostic Test Assessment". Journal of Thoracic Oncology. 5 (9): 1315–1316. doi:10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181ec173d. PMID 20736804.
  52. Illouz, Evyatar; (Omid) David, Eli; Netanyahu, Nathan S. (2018). "Handwriting-Based Gender Classification Using End-to-End Deep Neural Networks". Artificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning – ICANN 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 11141. pp. 613–621. arXiv:1912.01816. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-01424-7_60. ISBN 978-3-030-01423-0. S2CID 52909281.
  53. Bradley, Sean (March 2015). "Handwriting and Gender: A multi-use data set". Journal of Statistics Education. 23 (1): 1. doi:10.1080/10691898.2015.11889721. S2CID 123033133.
  54. Hamid, Sarah; Loewenthal, Kate Miriam (1996). "Inferring Gender from Handwriting in Urdu and English". The Journal of Social Psychology. 136 (6): 778–782. doi:10.1080/00224545.1996.9712254. PMID 9043207.
  55. Spear, Margaret Goddard (1989). "Differences between the Written Work of Boys and Girls". British Educational Research Journal. 15 (3): 271–277. doi:10.1080/0141192890150304.
  56. Burr, Vivien (2002). "Judging Gender from Samples of Adult Handwriting: Accuracy and Use of Cues". The Journal of Social Psychology. 142 (6): 691–700. doi:10.1080/00224540209603929. PMID 12450344. S2CID 39650656.
  57. Partial List of Characteristics Evaluated, Behavioral Profiling International, archived from the original on 2004-01-06, retrieved 2007-06-05
  58. Lighton, R. E. (1934). "A Graphological Examination of the Handwriting of Air Pilots". Thesis in the Faculty of Arts. University of Pretoria.
  59. Luca, E. S. (1973), "Major Aptitudes and Personality Characteristics of 42 Dental Students as Evaluated Through Their Handwriting", New York Journal of Dentistry, 43 (9): 281–83, PMID 4518182
  60. Thomas, Steven L.; Vaught, Steve (September 2001). "The write stuff: What the evidence says about using handwriting analysis in hiring". SAM Advanced Management Journal. 66 (4): 31–35.
  61. Koehn, Daryl. "Handwriting Analysis In Pre-Employment Screening". The Online Journal of Ethics. 1 (1).
  62. Spohn, Julie (Fall 1997). "The Legal Implications of Graphology". Washington University Law Quarterly. 73 (3).
  63. Poizner, Annette (2012). Clinical Graphology: An Interpretive Manual for Mental Health Practitioners. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publishers
  64. Karohs, Erika (1994) SSS. Pebble Beach, CA
  65. IGAS (1976) MGA. Chicago, IL: IGAS
  66. Ludewig, Reinhard; Dettweiler, Christian; Lewinson, Thea Stein (December 1992). "Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Medizinischen Graphologie" [Possibilities and limits of medical graphology. Determination of current status and perspectives (I)]. Zeitschrift für die gesamte innere Medizin und ihre Grenzgebiete (in German). 47 (12): 549–57. PMID 1285461.
  67. Knopp, W; Paulson, G; Allen, JN; Smeltzer, D; Brown, FD; Kose, W (March 1970). "Parkinson's disease: L-dopa treatment and handwriting area". Current Therapeutic Research, Clinical and Experimental. 12 (3): 115–25. PMID 4985489.
  68. Shermer, Michael, ed. (2002). The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. Vol. 1. Skeptic's Society. p. 119. ISBN 978-1-57607-653-8.
  69. de Sainte Columbe, Paul (1972), Grapho Therapeutics: Pen and Pencil Therapy (2nd ed.), Hollywood, CA: Paul de St Columbe Center

Further reading
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.