University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The Systematic Isolation And Validation Of Personality Determiners In The Handwriting Of School Children

(USC Thesis Other)

The Systematic Isolation And Validation Of Personality Determiners In The Handwriting Of School Children

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE SYSTEMATIC ISOLATION AND VALIDATION OF PERSONALITY DETERMINERS IN THE HANDWRITING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN by Thomas Dale Kimball A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Education) September 1973 INFORM ATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again - beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as ' received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 I 73-30,020 KIMBALL, Thomas Dale, 1935- THE SYSTEMATIC ISOLATION AND VALIDATION OF PERSONALITY DETERMINERS IN THE HANDWRITING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN. [Pages 149 and 150, previously copyrighted material, not microfilmed at request of author. Available for consultation at the University of Southern California Library.] University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1973 Education, psychology University Microfilms, A XEROX Company , Ann Arbor, Michigan THOMAS DALE KIMBALL 1973 THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. U NIVER SITY O F S O U TH E R N C A LIFO R N IA T H E G R A D U A T E S C H O O L U N IV E R S IT Y P A R K LO S A N G E L E S . C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, 'written by under the direction of h i.D is s e r ta tio n Com mittee, and approved by ali its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of requirements of D O C T O R O F P H J U d S Q P H Y Thomas Dale Kimball the degree of Dean J)a fe Sept. emb_e; r 1, 1973 DISSERTATION C O M M ITTEE TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. II. III. IV. Page INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM...............1 Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study Importance of the Study Definitions of Terms Used Delimitations Hypotheses and Questions to be Answered Organization of the Remainder of the Dissertation REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...............................17 Present Status of Research Tlie Sources Chronological Order of Selected Studies Summary METHODOLOGY.......................................... 35 Development of Operational Definitions for the Handwriting Variables The Sample Population The Experimental Group The Control Group Instrumentation Data Collection Treatment of the Data Methodological Assumptions Limitations FINDINGS............................................. 59 Questions Relating to Reliability Questions Relating to Validity Summary SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........... 108 Summary Conclusions Recommendations ii Page REFERENCES................................................ . 116 APPENDICES.................................. .............. 122 APPENDIX A. A Logical Order for Measurement of Handwriting Variables, Operationally Defined ........... ' . . . . . . . . 123 APPENDIX B. Exemplar for Handwriting Specimen ............ 142 APPENDIX C. Report Sheet for HandvTriting Specimens . . .143 APPENDIX D. Parental Permission Form......................145 APPENDIX E. Instructions to Teachers for Second Testing Session..............................147 APPENDIX F. Scoring Form for HSPQ.........................148 APPENDIX G. Individual T-Scores for Sessions 1, 2, and Differences for 78 Handwriting Variables....................................151 APPENDIX H. Pearson P.M. Correlation Matrix, Corrected for Attenuation as Used for Multiple Regression ....................... 172 APPENDIX I. Distribution and Variability Statistics (Combined Scores) for 78 Handwriting Variables....................................183 APPENDIX J. Distribution and Variability Statistics for 14 Personality Variables for Combined HSPQ Scores........................ 188 iii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Mean Sten Scores on HSPQ Personality Factors for Experimental Groups........................... 40 2. Age Characteristics of the Sample Population . . . . . 42 3. Extent of Participation by Subjects in Study.......... 43 4. Distribution of Sex and Handedness of Subjects .... 46 5. Personality Questionnaires Collected from Experimental Groups Classified by Sex and Form of T e s t .......... 49 6. Reliability and Validity Coefficients for Criterion Variables......................... 52 7. Original Design for Data Collection...................57 8. Handwriting Specimens Collected......................61 9. Reliability Coefficients for Personality Variables . . . 65 10. Subjects Possessing Stable Handwriting Variables Calculated by T-Score Differences .................... 71 11. Stability of Handwriting Variables over Five-Week Interval Ranked by Frequency of Extreme T~Scores . . . 72 12. Handwriting Variables Identified by Number and Name . . 73 13. Stability of Handwriting Variables over Five-Week Interval........................T ................... 75 14. Inter-Analyst Reliability Subsample Identified by Specimen- and Group-Code Numbers................... 77 15. Inter-Analyst Reliability Coefficients, with Means, Standard Deviations, and zf Values................... 78 16. Fourteen t Tests for Criterion Equivalence and Stability.......................................... 82 iv LIST OF TABLES— Continued Table Page 17. Descriptions of 14 Factors of HSPQ.................... 84 18. Significant t Values and Degrees of Freedom Relating to Validity of Handwriting Variables .... 87 19. Coefficients of Multiple Regression and Associated Values for Regression Equations to Predict HSPQ Factors from Handwriting Variables........... 96 v CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AMD DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM Students of human behavior have long been intrigued by the possible connection between personality and handwriting. Within the larger sphere of expressive movement, handwriting has been one of the more obvious sources for information about the mysterious inner workings of the human person. Early approaches towards simple, specific observation and measurement of something so complex and dynamic as human personality took one of two different perspectives: the idiograohic approach or the nomothetic approach. The idiographic approach emphasized the uniqueness of personality and its expressions: a case study was done on one individual person and his myriad behaviors, and his handwriting was interpreted from a global and intuitive point of view. The nomothetic approach grew from the need to make comparisons among the significant behaviors of separate individuals; it emphasized the more or less universal traits held in cannon by different persons, and by studying the individual "signs" of such traits in their handwriting specimens, atcmistically determined how frequently and to what degree these traits were operating in a particular individual. Later approaches combined the idiographic approach with the nomothetic approach by first isolating specific trait-indications in an individual's handwriting and then evaluating the unique manner in which the individual's traits were operating. Graphoanalysis is such an approach to personality assessment. Statement of the Problem The general problan engaging the researcher in this study was this: What is the nature of the relationship between the personality traits and the handwriting of school children? More specifically, what are the various grade-level norms which describe such a relation ship, if any, between the personality traits and the handwriting of school children. Purpose of the Study This study was designed primarily to explore the possibility of establishing the construct validity of personality determiners in the handwriting of school children. The expected outcome of the anpirical research was a set of objective linear regression equations for the prediction of specific personality traits from specific tiand- writing trait-indications. The results were expected to support substantially (and augment) the findings of previous validations studies done by Mann (1961), Hoepfner (1962), Lorr, Lepine, and Golder (1954), Kasparek (1957), Naegler (1962), and Pascal (1943). The secondary purpose of this study was to construct a model for gathering norms for various grade-levels of students within the K-12 system of public education. The final purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of certain measurement controls over handwriting. Importance of the Study One important reason for knowing more about human behavior is to be better able to predict and possibly to direct subsequent behavior. If handwriting analysis can be used to diagnose human behavior, then this same diagnostic information should be helpful in prediction of human behavior; that is, given that certain traits appear in a writer's script, it is more likely that he will behave in that way than in other ways. The extent of such behavioral tendencies is assumed to have a definite relationship to the extent of the trait-indications in the script. Why should handwriting analysis be preferred over sane other method of personality measurement? The most frequent answers are that handwriting is a relatively permanent record of the complex, dynamic self, and this record is direct, immediate, frequently and variously produced; further, handwriting is an inexpensive and easily accessible record that permits analysis without the subject's conscious interven tion— that is, the analysis of a specimen can be done at a time and place different from that of the actual writing of the script, and the writer need not be present. Faking of responses is much less likely to be a problem under such circumstances. Why should handwriting analysis be used in connection with the educational process in our schools? Early identification of individual differences among students permits prompt and specific prescriptions for appropriate learning experiences. Hearns (1969) examined 80 specimens of handwriting produced by dyslexic children to determine whether a predominance of certain deviations from a normal child's handv.^ l;ing would point to the presence of dyslexia. His results indicate that handwriting analysis can be one of the important diagnostic tools in determining the presence of dyslexia, and that further research in the field of handwriting analysis can be of great value. Critics of our present institutional testing programs complain that students are subjected to too many tests too frequently. Handwriting analysis is simple enough that teachers and facilitators could learn the fundamental skills sufficiently well to recognize cases for special attention, and to make referrals to specialized personnel. This could be done with the usual writing of the students as submitted for class assignments, without recourse to special testing materials and all the anxieties which accompany than. Typical school situations where handwriting analysis could be of most value are public schools too small to have full-time counselors on their staffs, and public schools too large for counselors to deal effectively with the large number of students referred to them. Definitions of Terms Used Psychologists, psychcmetrists, and analysts tend to use terms with meanings specific to their own work; thus, readers of literature in one field are apt to assume that similar words have similar meanings when they do not, in the literature of another field. The following definitions are given to minimize such confusion: Graphoanalysis. The system of analysis used by the members of the International Graphoanalysis Society, Inc., emphasizes attention to the details of writing in addition to general concern about its overall impression; it labels its method as an analysis of strokes, which involves counts of frequencies of occurrence of certain features of script; various features are balanced together to form sunmary analyses. Graphology. The generic name for any system of handwriting analysis, including Graphoanalysis, but employing the ideas of Klages, T4eyer, Preyer, and Pulver (Wolfson, 1951). Handwriting variable. A variable whose operational definition is based on measurement of strokes in the script of a writer. Personality determiner. That which defines, delimits, or describes some or all of the personality without necessarily causing it. This term is used rather than "trait" to avoid the inference of causality. Personality variable. 'A variable defined by a distinct factor measured by Cattell's Jr.-Sr. High School Personality Questionnaire (HSPQ). Trait. A term used to specify a particular configuration of behaviors, related to tire "bonds" of Thomson's bond theory (Vernon, 1950), and not implying the presence of a particular faculty or organ within a subject. Del imitations The research project required for adequately investigating the construct validity of personality determiners in the handwriting of school children is considerably larger than that required for the present study. Therefore, the investigator has envisioned a stepwise completion plan, of which only the first steps were completed and reported in the present study. The first step was an exploratory study using a sample of outgoing sixth-grade subjects to identify, isolate, and select premising handwriting variables to measure for correlation with the personality criterion. The second step is a follow-up study for cross-validation purposes, using a random sample of thirty-two subjects' handwriting specimens collected from a larger population of seventh-graders. The third step is different only in computerized data-reduction methods. Factor analysis and/or canonical correlation (SPSS subroutines) are used rather than multiple regression techniques. The expected outcome is a set of factors underlying both individual and clustered handwriting variables, or a set of significant canonical variates for each canonical correlation. These specific questions are asked for this step in the research plan: (1) What pure factors or clusters are discovered when handwriting variables are intercorrelated and subjected to data reduction by factor analysis or canonical correlations? (2) What is the nature of the "pure" factors or clusters of handwriting discovered in the present study as identi fied by examination of significant personality-factor loadings or canonical variates? (3) To what extent do the pure factors or clusters of handwriting discovered in the present study replicate those isolated and identified by previous studies? The first three steps constitute a norming model. The subse quent steps (at present undetermined in number) attempt to replicate findings associated with seventh-grade subjects for students at various grade-levels within the K-12 system. The handwriting variables used in the present study were determined both from graphological and Graphoanalytical rationales to support and amplify the results of previous studies. The handwriting variables were correlated only with those personality factors isolated and identified by Cattell and others; specifically, in the present study, those factors contained in Cattell and Beloff's Jr.-Sr. High School Personality Questionnaire (HSPQ) were employed as the personality variables. Practical considerations for time and effort limited the extent to which handwriting variables could be measured, as described below in the chapter on Methodology. Difficulties of engaging the cooperation of one or more school districts for the collection of data, involving psychological testing, limited the exploratory study to the outgoing sixth-grade population from one elementary school in the Los Angeles area; it limited the follow-up study to ten classrooms of seventh-grade subjects from a separate unified school district junior high school in the Los Angeles area. HYPOTHESES AND QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED The general null hypothesis for this exploratory study was that there is no relation whatever between the personality and the handwriting of school children. The major alternative hypothesis for this step of the study was that operationally-defined handwriting variables can be measured in the script specimens of school children and used to assess the personality characteristics of the writers, as measured concurrently by Cattell and Beloff's Jr.-Sr. High School Personality Questionnaire (HSPQ). To allow for decision-making, levels of confidence and statistical formulations follow each of the questions to be answered in this exploratory phase of the present study. Questions to be Answered The following questions relating to reliability were asked: 1. Are the variables found in a subject's handwriting specimen consistent (stable) over a five-week period of time? If so, which ones are stable? Specifically, are at least 90 percent of the same trait signs present to within 10 percent of the same intensity over a five-week interval? (These are purely arbitrary limits, practical enough to permit specific inter pretation, yet not too restrictive.) Statistical treatment. Convert raw scores for each subject to T-scores; calculate the difference between T-scores for the first session and the second administration five weeks later. If the absolute value of the T-score difference exceeds 20 (alpha = .05) for more than 10 percent of the handwriting variables, there is a statistically significant change from the first to second session, for that subject. 2. Is tire measurement of a subject's handwriting variables by one handwriting analyst consistent with the measursnent of the same subject's handwriting variables by another handwriting analyst? Specifically, does the group mean of a handwriting variable measured by one analyst differ significantly (alpha = .05) from the group mean of that variable as measured by the second analyst? Statistical treatment. After computing means, standard deviations, and variances for each of the groups' variables, use a t test for significant (alpha = .05) mean-differences for each of the handwriting variables: H„: group mean, , , = group mean, 0 d r Analyst^ ^ * - Analyst2 H, : group mean , . 4 group mean 1 Analyst-^ Analyst2 Since the direction of difference cannot be anticipated, use the two-tailed probability value. Are the criterion-variable scores frcra alternate forms of the personality questionnaire (HSPQ) consistent (equivalent) over a five-week interval? If so, which ones are consistent? Specificially, when the mean for a variable from the combined- -groups taking Form A is compared with the mean for that variable from the combined-groups taking Form B, is there a significant difference (alpha = .05)? Statistical treatment. Use two-tailed t tests for determining each variable's group-mean difference: H.: group mean = group meair, 0 3 ^ Form A • Torm B H. : group inean, , ^ group mean 1 ^ ^ Form A Form B Are the criterion-variable scores from alternate Form A 10 consistent (stable) over a five-week interval? If so, which ones are consistent? Specifically, when the mean for a varia ble from the ccmbined-groups taking Form A during the first session is compared with the mean for that variable from the combined-groups taking Form A during the second session, is there a significant difference (alpha = .05)? Statistical treatment. Use two-tailed t tests to determine each variable's group-mean difference: Hn: group mean, = group mean, u Session 1 -^Session 2 I I , : group mean _ ^ group mean ■^Session 1 Session 2 5. Are the criterion-variable scores frcm alternate Form B consistent (stable) over a five-week interval? If so, which ones are consistent? (Mann [1961] found interesting discrep ancies between the values quoted in the criterion manual and the values he obtained himself; the preceding three questions are asked to replicate his results.) Specifically, when the mean for a variable frcm the combined-groups talcing Form B during the first session is compared with the mean for that variable frcm the combined-groups taking Form B during the second session, is there a significant difference?(alpha = .05) Statistical treatment. Use two-tailed t tests to determine each variable's group-mean difference: Hq: group mearig 'Session 1 = group meanB 'Session 2 H, : group mean,, -L D, Session 1 7^ group mearr. Session 2 11 The following questions relating to external validity were asked: 6. Is there a difference between two sets of paraphrased specimens collected frcm the same group of subjects five weeks apart? Specifically, is the group mean for a handwriting variable frcm paraphrased specimens significantly different (alpha = .05) from the group mean for that variable frcm paraphrased specimens collected five weeks later? Statistical treatment. Run two-tailed t tests to determine each variable's group-mean difference: H0: group ^ P a r asesslon 1 = ^oup ^ P a r a Sassion 2 Hl= group 1 * group ^ P a r a Session 2 7. Is there a difference between two sets of copied specimens collected frcm the same group five weeks apart? Specifically, is the group mean for a handwriting variable frcm copied specimens significantly different (alpha = .05) frcm the group mean for that variable from copied specimens collected five weeks later? Statistical treatment. Use two-tailed t tests to determine each variable's group-mean difference: H0= group *~«cCWBeBaSal , = group - ^ p y ^ ^ 2 Hl: group ^ group 2 12 8. Is there a difference between specimens producted in connection with the personality questionnaire (HSPQ) and specimens collected without subsequent administration of the criterion? Specifically, is the group mean for a handwriting variable in the combined experimental groups significantly different (alpha = .05) from the group mean for that variable in the combined control groups? Statistical treatment. Run two-tailed t tests to determine each variable's group-mean difference: Hq ; group meanMX+sx = group meanJC+sc H-^ group mean^K+sx ^ group meantc+sc The following questions relating to internal validity were asked: 9. Is there a difference between specimens copied from a standard text and those paraphrased frcm it? Specifically, when the mean for a handwriting variable from a combined-group in the "Copy" mode is compared with the mean for that variable from a combined-group in the "Paraphrase" mode, is there a signifi cant difference (alpha = .05)? Statistical treatment. Use two-tailed t tests to determine each variable’s group-mean difference: H0: group = group ■ ^ m e parB^ aaBe H1: group ? group meaiwsparaphrase 13 10. Is there a difference between specimens produced by using a pen rather than a pencil? Specifically, when the mean for a handwriting variable from a classroom group using pencils is compared with the mean for that variable frcm a classroom group using pens, is there a significant difference (alpha = .05)? Statistical treatment. Use two-tailed t tests to determine each variable's group-mean difference: 11. Is there a difference between specimens copied frcm a standard text and specimens paraphrased frcm the same standard text, but collected five weeks later from the same subjects? Specifically, is the group mean for a handwriting variable frcm the copied specimens significantly different (alpha = .05) frcm the group mean for that variable frcm the paraphrased specimens collected five weeks later? Statistical treatment. Use two-tailed t tests to determine each variable's group-mean difference: 12. Is there a difference between specimens paraphrased frcm a standard text and specimens copied frcm the same text, but collected five weeks later? Specifically, is the group mean for a handwriting variable frcm specimens paraphrased H - , : group msan.,„ ^ group meanQr. Pencil • Pen . Q: group mean^ H.: group mean,,, ^ group mean ' Copy ^Paraphrase mSar' M2cParaphrase 14 significantly different {alpha = .05) from the group mean for that variable from copied specimens collected five weeks later? Statistical treatment. Use two-tailed t tests to determine each variable's group-mean difference: Hq: group meanly = group mean^pv Paraphrase '"Copy H : group meanly ^ group meanly paraphrase 'Copy 13. Is there a difference between two sets of specimens collected frcm the same group five weeks apart, the first set copied with pens, the second set paraphrased with pencil? Specifically, is the group mean for a handwriting variable from specimens copied in pen significantly different (alpha = .05) frcm the group mean for that variable from specimens paraphrased in pencil? Statistical treatment. Run two-tailed t tests to determine each variable's group-mean difference: Hq : group means^c = group mean^-,,-, °°Wpen “ ^Pencil H : group means- j _ c ^ group mean^^ C°pypen ^Pencil 14. For any one sample of subjects, what are the statistical characteristics of the population of handwriting variables and personality variables; to what degree do handwriting variables correlate with personality questionnaire variables? Statistical treatment. Use SPSS subroutine CONDESCRIPTIVE to calculate for each variable its mean, standard error, standard 15 deviation, variance, kurtosis, skewness, range, minimum, and maximum values, thereby describing the central tendency and variability of each frequency distribution. Use SPSS sub routine PEARSON CORR to calculate the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients for each pair of variables. Output both a complete matrix on card-format for input into SPSS subroutine REGRESSION, and a non-redundant matrix on paper for inspecting statistical significance of each coefficient to allow for attenuation corrections of the complete matrix before multiple regression. Use data from all handwriting specimens for the CONDESCRIPTIVE procedure; use data frcm the experimental groups only for the PEARSON CORR subroutine. 15. If significant correlations exist, what individual handwriting variables correlate with individual personalitv variables; what individual handwriting variables correlate with clusters of personality variables; and what clusters of handwriting variables correlate with individual personality variables? Statistical treatment. Use multiple regression in the step wise mode to answer the first and third parts of this question; answer the second part by factor analysis or canonical correla tion later, using SPSS subroutines FACTOR or CANCORR. Use the correction formula for attenuation suggested by Guilford (1965) to enhance the coefficients involving the criterion (IISPQ) variables. (Eysenck [1948] noted that when a graphologist's diagnosis or assessment is validated against the usual type of self-rating, clinical opinion, character sketch, or other sub- 16 jective estimate, the possibility remains that low validity coefficients are due to the imperfections of the criterion rather than failure on the graphologist's part.) Fepunch these values on the data cards of the entire matrix for input into SPSS subroutine REGRESSION, using the criterion variables as the dependent variables, and the handwriting variables as the independent or "predictor1 ' variables. Due to practical limits of manipulating a regression equation involving many variables, limit to twelve steps maximum the stepwise search for variables to increase multiple R. Suppressor variables (suggested by Mann [1961]) automatically appear as negative values in the summary output of REGRESSION for each dependent variable. Organization of the Remainder of the Dissertation The remainder of the dissertation is organized as follows: Chapter II is a review of related literature. Chapter III describes the samples, measuring instruments, research procedure, research design, and treatment of the data. Chapter IV is a discussion of the results related to the stated hypotheses and questions. Chapter V is a summary of the study, conclusions, and T-ecanmendations for further research. Appendices are included to provide other researchers with data' and exemplars for continued study of the research problem. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Thirty years have passed since Pascal (1943) did his study at the Harvard Psychological Clinic. In his introduction, Pascal impugned the discredited status of graphology in the United States, despite the a priori nature of the evidence against graphology. He concluded that indifference on the part of American psychologists toward graphology can be attributed to the methods of graphology itself. Every text on graphology examined by Pascal presented the analysis of handwriting as a test of personality; yet not one of them offered norms, not one of them presented figures showing the reliability and validity of their tests, not one of them bothered to define their personality variables; and, although some grapholo gists have presented valid diagnoses by clinical and matching tech niques, the significance of graphological variables for personality has not yet been satisfactorily established. The situation today does not seem much improved at first glance. In the most recent study available, Ference (1970) most thoroughly presented the basis and background of graphology, tracing its development from antiquity to modem times. He reviewed graphological research in general, and medical, psychiatric, and automated graphology in particular. Ference stated (1970, p. 59) 17 18 that in general the various studies involving heterogeneous research into graphology lack much. They often are deficient in precision of report, in control of Ss, materials, and conditions, and in rigor of analysis. Yet even with the faults of these relatively well done investigations, they seem to call for more research rather than abandonment of the concept of scientific graphology. This has been done in more specialized areas of endeavor. Because construct validity of handwriting analysis appears to be in doubt in modem scientific circles, at least within the United States, the search centered first on those studies which attempted to validate personality characteristics through handwriting analysis, or other projective techniques. Further, to lessen the problem of identifying acceptable criteria for validity, factor analytic studies were preferred over "matching" studies. Finally, studies were selected which dealt with specific age groups with the hope of isolating any with populations of young school subjects. Studies representing different graphological techniques were included. Fluckiger, Tripp, and Weinberg (1961) reviewed experimental research in graphology during the period from 1933 to 1960; included were articles in which the authors tried to test one or more hypothe ses. Their survey of 105 references covered problems of methodology, relation of handwriting to personality characteristics of the writer, relation of handwriting to numerous other variables, and concluding remarks. The International Graphoanalysis Society, Inc., (1970) published an annotated bibliography of studies in handwriting analysis research. The 132 references included in the booklet concentrated on 19 investigations of validity and reliability of handwriting analysis, especially as a method of assessing personality characteristics. References included both domestic and foreign studies. The investigator thoroughly examined trie sources used in the foregoing works, and found that they compared closely with his own independent searches using ERIC, Psychological Abstracts, Dissertation Abstracts, and local libraries' listings. No single study had been done which incorporated all of these features: (1) using school children (K-12) as subjects rather than college students: (2) using a large sample of subjects; (3) using criterion variables of known reliability and validity; (4) using relatively pure factors of personality as criterion variables; (5) using factor analysis and multiple correlation of handwriting variables to obtain reliable and valid predictors; and (6) replicating the findings of previous studies for reliability and validity of personality determiners in handwriting. The studies which follow cover the last thirty years; they are discussed in chronological order to make cross-referencing easier. Beyond the characteristics mentioned above as a basis for selection, special consideration was given to the various methods used to collect handwriting specimens. Pascal (1943) started frcm "scratch" and did an empirical validity study of the relationship between variables of handv/riting and variables of personality. He assumed no significant relationship exists between any variable of handwriting and any variable of personality. His confidence level was conservative (alpha = .95), 20 accepting significant Pearson rho correlations converted to Pearson r's. Pascal used twenty-two volunteer college men who had been previously tested in the Harvard Psychological Clinic as his subjects. Each subject was ranked on each of thirty-six personality variables by consensus of staff psychologists. Likewise, each subject was ranked on the basis of twenty-two handwriting variables measured frcm a spontaneous script specimen. Pascal's volunteers were asked to write on unruled paper (two sheets, 8\ x 11 inches) as naturally as possible, an account of their experiences since leaving college, using their favorite fountain pen. The handwriting variables were arbitrarily selected by the author who was familiar with the work of Saudek and Klages. Nine first-order correlation coefficients and seven multiple correlation coefficients were found to be significant at the once percent level. Pascal concluded that for his population, certain aspects of personality were significantly related to certain aspects of handwriting, but added that various measurements and combinations of measurements need to be tested against various personality traits to uncover those which yield the highest degree of relationship. Factor analysis appears to be appropriate here. Pascal's final remark is germane: With the crying need for leadership, honesty, and understanding in our postwar world, psychology can do no greater service to civilization than to further the development of reliable tests for the personality variables of which these things are com pounded; and to be reliable these tests must not be founded on variable, controllable verbal material, but on morphology, physiology, expressive movements, and other unconscious, uncontrollable factors possessed by the individual. Among such tests graphology is not the least insignificant.(p. 44) Cattell, Warburton, Eysenck, et al. have accomplished this very thing 21 in the Objective-Analytic Personality Battery (1955). The battery of objective tests has been the basis for establishing questionnaires which measure the same factors with very high validity and reliability. Eysenck's study (1945) showed that it was possible for a skilled graphologist to diagnose personality traits from handwriting with better-than-chance success; it also seemed probable that the handwriting of seme people presented less difficulty for such an analysis than did that of others, and that sane traits were diagnosed with greater success than were others. This study was essentially a matching of analyses made from subjects' handwriting specimens with both a primary validation criterion (professional diagnosis and the patient's case history) and a personality questionnaire covering the main personality traits discovered by Guilford. However, the specific reliability and validity of this specially-constructed questionnaire were not mentioned, even if determined. Having reviewed thirty previous studies and found them wanting, Eysenck adopted very stringent controls, used a large sample of handwritings (N = 50), and used "more acceptable" criteria for validity. Eysenck seems to be the first European to be so rigorous in his reported research (it was carried out with the help of a Rockefeller grant). None of the writers' knew the object of the study; they were asked to copy the personality question naire on standard, unruled white paper with a standard pen, and to write their answers in a space previously marked off behind the questions. These answers were then detached frcm the copy of the questionnaire in the patient's handwriting, which was given to a graphologist for analysis. Eysenck explained that the handwriting 22 specimens were obtained by copying, not by free writing, to prevent judgments based on the writer's method of expression, choice of words, etc., fran influencing the graphologist; in free writing, it is impossible to control this factor adequately. The possibility that copying produces a different kind of writing was recognized by Eysenck, but had never been satisfactorily proved. Eysenck's later study (1948) incorporated improvements in the criteria. One hundred seventy-six handwriting specimens were judged by a graphologist on a five-point scale with respect to the writer's degree of "neuroticism". Two validating criteria were available, an objective criterion, consisting of the results of a battery of personality tests, and a subjective one, consisting of a psychiatric diagnosis. The two criteria showed a high degree of intercorrelation (0.73). The battery of tests comprising the objective criterion had a corrected split-half reliability of 0.75 and a theoretical validity of 0.87. The correlation of graphological assessment with the objec tive criterion was low but significant (r = +0.21); with the subjective criterion it was insignificant (r = -0.02). The author pointed out that even with an imperfect criterion, short objective tests showed much higher validity coefficients than did graphological analysis; he also argued for the point that the nomothetic approach to personality testing has at least as much, if not more, value as the idiographic approach, usually associated with graphology. However, significantly extra-chance results were obtained, indicating that personality does reveal itself in a person's handwriting; but for practicality, the interpretation of handwriting must be improved by the usual scientific 23 methods, and better correlations must be sought between unitary personality trends and certain expressive qualities of movement. Eysenck seems to have broadened his views concerning the idiographic versus nomothetic approach; in his earlier study (1945) he noted that certain studies yield results which are so much more favorable to graphology than in others, and discussed a study by Krueger and Zietz sunmarized by Bachman (1937) where the investigators laid before eighty people a "universal" characterization, which was recognized by every one of their subjects as appropriate for himself. While this is a canton complaint against handwriting analyses, still there is often much similarity among persons and their writing. Analysts should strive to isolate truly distinctive (idiographic) traits, while noting more general (nomothetic) traits in the handwriting of a subject. Castelnuovo-Tedesco (1948) did a "matching" study not of particular interest here, except that he demonstrated that for his six handwriting judges spontaneous handwriting specimens were more revealing of personality traits than "copy" specimens in which the subjects knew in advance that their handwriting would be analyzed. The judges' technique was holistic or global (rather than atomistic); this is the method characteristic of graphology. Lorr, Lepine, and Golder (1954) isolated and identified five factors descriptive of the handwriting of 200 right-handed graduate students, using Thurstone's centroid analysis. Each subject was asked to write in pen and ink, as a test of imagination, a full-page story on a standard sheet of unruled bond paper, when presented with a TAT card. No subject knew that his writing would be used for graphological study. 24 A specially-prepared 100-item personality questionnaire, purporting to measure 13 factors, was also administered to each subject; however, no figures for reliability or validity were reported. Only three samples of handwriting were drawn from each sheet: the first word in the first line, the middle word in the middle line, and the last word of the last complete line. Such minimal use of data is a constant weakness of the graphological method, as seen in Hoepfner's study (1962), below. Graphoanalysis uses most or all of the stroke-configurations from the sample specimen for interpretation. The authors of this study noted that the factors identified were surprisingly narrow, and suggested including a larger number of measures to overdetermine each factor. The intercorrelations of the 16 graphological measures and ratios with the 13 questionnaire scales were uniformly low. Six of the 208 correlations were above 0.26 but none was above 0.30. The coefficients that might be regarded as significant at the one percent level were examined. There appeared to be no systematic relation between the handwriting factors and the personality traits measured by the questionnaire. In a factor analytic study done in Czechoslovakia, Kasparek (1957) collected samples of handwriting frcm 154 university students, aged 21 to 28. The subjects were instructed to copy a coherent standard text of 10 sentences, containing 1,347 letters, writing with their natural speed and manner. Tetrachoric correlation coefficients between 28 signs were subjected to a further analysis by the Thurstone centroid method, yielding 11 factors when the factor matrix was rotated to simple structure. The determination of the first two 25 factors was relatively the best: Factor Alpha, the size of letters and words, was anticipated by Allport and Vernon (1933); Factor Beta, the spaces, was anticipated by Harvey (1934). Seme of these factors compared with those isolated in previous studies, while seme were apparently unique. In a Canadian study, Mann (1961) explored the relationships between handwriting and personality factors, using criterion variables of high reliability and validity. The sums of the factor scores of Forms A and B of the Cattell Sixteen Factor Personality Questionnaire served as the experimental criteria for 110 male, right-handed college students, whose handwriting was measured and analyzed by graphological techniques. Five weeks intervened between the administration of the forms of the Cattell test during which controlled samples of the subjects' handwriting were obtained. Mann was influenced by Castel- nuovo-Tedesco (1948) to set up similar controls: subjects wrote on identical paper (presumably unruled) with mechanical pencils (Scripto brand) loaded with I.B.M. E650 electrosensitive lead. They were asked to copy verbatim a passage about a storm at sea for two minutes without hurrying particularly; the purpose of the writing, they were told, was to bring their thinking to the same "heme base" before a test of word association was administered; they were not told that the specimens would also be used for handwriting analysis. According to Mann, the chief advantage of using a factorially-derived instrument such as the Cattell test was that each trait measured was of relatively high factorial purity. 26 Maim ran tetrachoric correlations between all pairs of handwriting and personality traits and between all pairs of hand writing traits; these two sets of correlations were explored by multiple correlations, resulting in 16 multiple correlations ranging fran 0.305 to 0.626. From these, multiple regression equations were developed; the final result was sixteen unique combinations of hand writing traits predictive of the sixteen personality traits measured. Mann's procedure did not include cross-validation, however. Mann partially confirmed his thesis that intuitively-combined handwriting variables can be replaced by objective linear regression equations to predict personality traits. Pooling handwriting variables to improve validity by calculating multiple correlation coefficients was suggested by Eysenck in his 1945 study; the same method was followed by Diamond (1965), below. Mann suggested, in addition, that objective handwriting traits other than those studied were needed to complement the multiple regression equations he found. Mann included his list of operational definitions of handwriting variables, a feature which few other researchers have reported, other than Pascal (1943). Again, Mann's use of graphological techniques makes minimal use of the raw data available for measurement in the specimens collected. Hoepfner (1962) investigated the bases and claims of graphology in such a manner that the results would have more generality than the results of previous studies. His study was the only one discovered by the investigator which used elementary-school age subjects. He measured the handwriting of 210 seventh-grade students 27 from two Los Angeles suburban junior high schools, controlling for both sex and handedness. Hie students were unaware of the function their handwriting would serve. All the writing was done with the same type of pencil on ruled paper in response to open-end tests. Thirty-two handwriting variables were rated, largely those described by Lewinson (1961), but including several more added by the author himself to help identify broader factors, as suggested by Lorr, Lepine, and Golder (1954), above. Measurements of each specimen were based on minimal empirical data, a constant weakness of studies employing graphological methods, as reviewed by the investigator. Grapho- analysis uses either all or most of the available strokes in the script specimen. Hoepfner's results showed that handwriting is a consistent product of the subjects and that its elements can be measured with considerable reliability (the corrected reliability coefficients were all estimated to be above 0.80). Multiple correlations of selected graphological variables with each of the ten personality traits did not indicate that the elemental graphological methods can be seriously considered as useful predictive aids or substitutes for the inventory- -measured personality traits used in the study. However, Hoepfner did not report reliability and validity coefficients for these criteria. A factor analysis of the 26 experimentally independent graphic elements discovered the following eleven common orthogonal factors: Height of letters, Breadth of letters, Variability of writing line, Width of left margin, Straightness of writing line, Letter slant, Horizontal spread, Ornamentation, Direction of line, Middle height 28 variability, and Pressure. Again, these do not compare exactly with those isolated in other factoranalytic studies. The results cannot be considered conclusive evidence against the validity of all graphology, but must be considered in the light of the specific methods employed; the anlytic approach to graphological measurement used in this study precluded any generalization of the results to the fonnniveau method of graphology. Hoepfner claimed his results add reliable, interpretable, and generalizable information to that already accumulated as evidence reducing confidence in the validity of graphological claims. However, he maintained that his findings support the conclusion that the graphological method is defensible on the basis of reliability of measures or ratings of the handwriting elements. Naegler's study (1962) employed a Graphoanalyst to assess the personality characteristics of a group of 65 college students, using Cattell's Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire as a criterion. Standard scores on the criterion were correlated with ratings scaled to the same traits as evaluated by the analyst in an unspecified manner from specimens of handwriting collected during a previous classroom quiz. Thus, the subjects were unaware when they wrote the quiz that their writing would be analyzed. The specimens were at least two pages long, but whether ruled or unruled paper was used was not reported; neither was the type of instrument used for writing reported. Naegler found thirteen correlations were significant at the 0.005 level for the sixteen factors; twelve of these were positive, and one negative; on three factors there was no significant correlation. No significant 29 difference between means scores of each factor was found; the closeness of scores on the rating scale was greater than chance. The correlations ranged from +0.556 down to +0.121. While these are typically low values, more precise determination of the Grapho- analytical trait-indications might lend more practicality to the results of the research design. Naegler stated that Graphoanalysis was developed as a particular discipline of handwriting analysis over a period of more than thirty years by Milton N. Bunker and was based mainly on empirical and/or clinical assessment. However, no records are available, and only very recent and limited research by the staff of the International Graphoanalysis Society, Inc., satisfies modem statistical rigor. Diamond (1965) tested the hypothesis that observable behavior is related to objective measurements of handwriting variables, thereby testing whether or not handwriting is an expressive movement. Although high and significant multiple correlations could be obtained in one of two groups, the results could not be replicated. The methods used were those of Pascal (1943), and his results were not replicated either. Diamond concluded on this basis that handwriting was not demonstrated to be an expressive movement, at least for the personality and hand writing variables used in his experiment. He suggested that other variables could be used, but the outlook for ascertaining seme consistent degree of relationship between handwriting and personality was not encouraging. The results of the Diamond study were limited by the small number of subjects used (N - 26). The handwriting variables used were selected more or less intuitively, and because of their 30 prior use in Pascal's study which was being replicated. A more relevant and systematic selection of handwriting variables is in order. Diamond's ranking of subjects according to peer-judgments of their personality traits is convenient for statistical treatment, but is suspect if any consideration is given to unconscious dynamics of personality, unlikely to be observed by one's peers. The study done by Zdep and Weaver (1967) has been included because the authors decided to employ Graphoanalysts to identify successful salesmen. They rejected other methods of graphology in favor of Graphoanalysis, because it is a standardized method, they claimed. Sixty-three life insurance salesmen were instructed to copy a paragraph in their normal handwriting style; neither the paper nor the instrument used to write the specimens was reported. On the basis of 13 intuitively-selected and defined traits of handwriting, they failed to identify successful salesmen; likewise, using six prominent traits isolated frcm the writing of three successful salesmen, the Graphoanalysts failed to identify other successful salesmen from their handwriting. On the other hand, the analysts were moderately successful in identifying failures among the salesmen on the basis of traits they lacked in their handwriting. Inter judge reliability of the analysts on each of the 13 traits were significant, but ranged frcm unacceptably low (r = .50) to quite high (r = .85). Correlations of individual traits with the criterion were largely negative and all insignificant. The authors pointed out that construct validity of the traits was not and probably could not be determined adequately in the study; rather, attempts were made at selection according to a 31 concurrent validity model. They also pointed out that attempting to predict success on the basis of personality traits implies more than their mere presence in an individual subject; the traits must be applied before success can be measured. lockowandt (1968) explored the linking of graphemetrie indicators and character traits in an extensive study using factor analysis of the handwriting samples of 100 subjects, together with a test battery consisting of questionnaires, intelligence tests, and projective tests. Although the significant factors which the study yielded often did not agree with current graphological interpretation (in Europe), enough evidence was found to indicate that definite relationships can be established. The author suggested that as long as the insecure position of validation had not been studied, further critical or polemic statements about the value of graphology should be avoided. Ference (1970) utilized two distinct methods of handwriting analysis in an attempt to predict the success of students in dental school. His subjects were 185 members of two entering dental classes, essentially identical in predental makeup. Half-page samples of handwriting were taken for handwriting analysis from the admissions application forms. Predictor variables included besides handwriting, birthdates, predental GPA's, extent of preprofessional education, and DAT scores. Overachievement-Underachievement variables were calculated from transformations of combinations of DAT scores and dental GPA's; these were used as criterion variables to be predicted. Two hand writing analysts, one using graphological techniques and the other 32 using Graphoanalytical skills, independently rated the handwriting samples; however, the original specimens were not used; instead, Xerox copies which reportedly reproduced the writing with high quality and minimal loss of detail were examined by the analysts. There was no apparent control over the writing instruments used by the subjects. Neither of the two approaches to handwriting analysis tested was able to separate successful from unsuccessful dental students. Possible reasons for the failure were the limitations of the criterion variables and the restricted range of variation of subjects in the sample population. Zdep and Weaver's results and interpretations (1967) regarding the presence of "successful" traits of personality versus the application of such traits for successful performance have relevance here as well. Does anyone really know a "successful" dental (predental) student when he sees one? The primary value of Ference's study here is his extensive and thorough review of the history and literature of handwriting analysis. Summary Thirty years of research have shown there is sane relationship between handwriting and personality, but reliability and validity controls have been unevenly used or missing entirely. More and better research testing of construct validity of handwriting is possible now, and needs to be done. Multiple regression techniques are effective for pooling the variance of handwriting variables for prediction of personality factors. 33 Factor analysis requires a larger number of handwriting variables than those used by most researchers heretofore. Reliable and valid criteria for personality measurement exist in the form of objective -test batteries, such as the Objective-Analytic Personality Battery (1955). Related questionnaires developed by Cattell et al., which are more convenient to administer, provide relatively pure factors of personality within acceptable ranges of reliability and validity for doing research. Writers who are unaware that their writing will be analyzed produce specimens more acceptable to handwriting analysis by the holistic technique; more research designs use this validity control than not. It is still not known whether producing a specimen by copying rather than by "spontaneous" writing affects reliability and/or validity of the specimen for evaluating personality of the writer; the same can be said for the writing instrument, pen or pencil. Graphological techniques of measurement make minimal use of the available data in handwriting specimens. Neither graphology nor Graphoanalysis nor a combination thereof has proved effective for validity research, although reliability of the atomistic measuronent method is acceptable. No single study has been done which incorporates all of these features: (1) using school children (K-12) as subjects rather than college students; (2) using a large sample of subjects (more than 30); (3) using criterion variables of known reliability and validity; (4) using relatively pure factors of personality as criterion 34 variables; {5) using factor analysis and multiple correlation of handwriting variables to obtain reliable and valid predictors; (6) making extensive use of the data available in the handwriting specimens; and (7) replicating the findings of previous studies for reliability and validity of personality determiners in handwriting. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The purposes of this chapter are (1) to describe the development of operational definitions for the handwriting variables, (2) to describe the sample population, the experimental group, and the control group, (3) to describe the instruments used for data collection, (4) to outline the administration and scoring procedures, and (5) to describe the treatment of the data. Development of Operational Definitions for the Handwriting Variables Previous studies of the relationship between handwriting and personality have relied upon measurements of specimens wherein very limited use of the data was made; this was pointed out above in the studies done by Ference (1970), Hoepfner (1962), Harm (1961), and Lorr, Lepine, and Golder (1954). Measuring and counting so few strokes frcm a specimen does not, in the investigator's opinion, specify adequately whether a particular stroke-indication is representative (to whatever degree) of the script specimen, and hence of the writer. What is worse, many researchers give little if any indication of how they measured and counted handwriting variables; notable exceptions are Pascal (1943) and Mann (1961) who reported their 35 36 definitions along with treatment of the data. Eysenck did not specify the method used by the graphologist in his 1945 study, but in his 1943 study he did: he identified the system used by his grapholo gist as a simple adaptation of that advocated and taught by Klages. Despite the claim of Zdep and Weaver (1967) that Graphoanalysis is the only standardized method of handwriting analysis, the definitions in the instructional materials and copies of the Journal of Graphoanalysis published by the International Graphoanalysis Society, Inc., admit of various interpretations of data for all variables (trait-indications). Naegler (1964) did a study to determine the quantitative agreement between two Graphoanalysts when judging the personality traits of the same subject. The two judges scored each specimen written by 32 college students, using a five-point rating scale listing 20 coirmon personality traits. Coefficients of correlation were computed for scores of each judge; all were positive, ranging from 0.098 up to 0.744. No true difference was found to exist between the means of the scores of the two judges, based on critical ratio values. Naegler concluded that two Graphoanalyst judges can agree consistently higher than chance would allow, but admitted that further research was needed to develop more consistent standards of quantitative objectivity in Graphoanalysis. Therefore, it was decided to formulate a set of operational definitions which would make better use of the data than does graphology, which would be more consistent when used tv/ice by the same person or when used by two different persons than present Grapho- analytical definitions allow, which would be simple to comprehend and 37 use on a regular basis, and finally which would be practical in the amount of time required and the type of instruments required. Examination of an official worksheet used by Graphoanalysts (G402, I.G.A.S.) produced 74 primary traits, after redundancies were removed. Definitions for each of these were gleaned frcm official instruction materials published by the International Graphoanalysis Society, Inc., or frcm copies of the Journal of Graphoanalysis dating frcm 1962 to 1970. Using the above-mentioned criteria (extensive, consistent, simple and practical) with Mann1s list (1961) as a guide to format, a set of new definitions were formulated. Those which were duplicated by Mann were removed or altered. The total number was over one hundred variables, too many to process conveniently by exist ing computer programs for factor analysis. Therefore, the list was reduced to a fewer number by combining various variables into unitary measures; for example, an average slant measure was used instead of six different categorical values, top-shapes of letters were rated along a continuum frcm 1 to 5, circle-structures were rated along a continuum frcm 1 to 5 depending on presence of inner loops. Next, the list of new definitions was rearranged in a more logical order to expedite analysis of a single specimen. A sample specimen was used to test the new definitions; changes were made in the reporting of values obtained so that the data could be more easily translated to data- -processing cards by a key-punch operator; in particular, reciprocals of the ratios of the final set of variables were used so that percents could be reported rather than whole numbers of three digits. This change further eliminated confusion between ratings and millimeter measurements. Reported values, then, fell into four categories: measures, ratings, percents, and ratios. An exemplar report form appears in the Appendices section of this study, following the list of operational definitions of the handwriting variables. Referring to the exemplar, the reader will note that percent values were reported to the nearest percent (i.e., the corresponding decimal values were rounded off to the nearest hundredth); metric values for length and width were reported to the nearest tenth when averaged, but original measurements were accurate only to the nearest half-millimeter, and angles to the nearest haIf-degree; values for ratings were reported to the nearest tenth; all composite scores or ratios were reported according to these same males. The measurement instruments required for obtaining the scores for handwriting variables are listed and described at the beginning of the list of operational definitions of the handwriting variables: a protractor of clear plastic for measuring angles; a straight-edge of clear plastic marked off in millimeters; a pencil with a fine point; and a calculator for arithmetic computations, such as accumulating sums and finding averages. The Sample Population The school children who served as subjects for this study were the entire outgoing class of 87 sixth-graders, divided into four intact homerooms, at one elementary school of a local unified school district with an average daily attendance below 10,000. The school population came from families living in the vicinity of the school, which was located in a residential area comprised of single-unit dwellings, 39 zoned R-l. The parents of the pupils were largely self-employed professionals and/or artists whose average annual income places them in the upper middle-class by Warner's socio-economic classification. The typical pupil at this school had one or two siblings. The sixth- -graders who took part in this study during May and June, 1972, were assumed to have the same characteristics as the school population, even though the results of the study may not generalize readily to the sixth-grade or seventh-grade populations in other school districts. Evidence that the sample of subjects was average or normal with respect to personality factors can be seen in Table 1, where mean scores for each factor of the criterion (HSPQ) are reported. This information tends to extend generalizability of the findings. Since this was an exploratory study, it was more important to engage the cooperation of a school district than to effect generalizability by random selection frcm many cooperating school districts, which in fact could not be found. The conditions described by Campbell and Stanley (1966) for a quasi-experimental research design applied in this study. The entire class of sixth-graders was used, though the experimental and control groups was separated into intact homerooms. This division of the subjects was made at the suggestion of the district's elementary school psychologist, who judged that it would be easier to get parental permission for psychological testing of half the class than for all the class. Frcm a total of 87 pupils, one could not participate, being confined at hone as a heme-student, and six more were not permitted to take a written personality test by their parents; thus, 80 pupils 40 TABLE 1 MEAN STEN SCORES ON HSPQ PERSONALITY FACTORS FOR EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS (N = 41) Factor Form A Form B A 5.77 6.19 B 5.92 6.92 C 6.31 6.30 D 5.41 5.30 E .5.92 6.00 F 5.77 5.62 G 6.28 6.08 H 6.13 6.46 I 5.44 6.08 J 5.05 4.62 0 4.54 4.76 Q2 5.56 4.76 Q3 6.00 5.49 q4 4.80 5.19 Note.— The average Sten score ranges from 4.50 to 6.50. 41 became the subjects of the study. The age characteristics of all 87 pupils is given in Table 2, where the reader will note that the average age was about 12 years at the time of the study's data collection (May and June, 1972). Hoepfner (1962) used seventh-graders in his study; he cited for his decision the claim of Ecman-Goldzieher (1936) that graphologi cal studies on school children can be successfully carried on well below the grade level used in his (Hoepfner's) study: i.e., seventh grade. Hoepfner controlled his sample of subjects for sex and. handedness, using only right-handed males. He found that sex was correlated with handedness; two graphological variables were also found to be correlated with handedness: distance; between words, and range of distance between words. Thus, he suggested that handedness be controlled either experimentally or statistically in further investigations. Since the present study was limited to 80 subjects rather than over 200 as in Hoepfner's study, and because the present study was exploratory in nature, it was decided to include both males and females, right-handed and left-handed subjects while identifying their scores in such a way that subsequent researchers could make; allowances for such characteristics. Therefore, when the subjects were assigned code numbers frcm a list of random numbers for anonymous identification of their scores during data processing, a variable for "hand used to write the sample specimen" was permanently attached to his case. Table 3 displays this information for each subject to the extent that the pupil took part in the study. Table 4 displays the 42 TABLE 2 AGE QIARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE POPULATION (N - 87) Statistic Years Mode 12.00 Median, 11.92 Mean 11.83 Range 2.75 Quartile 1 11.58 Quartile 3 12.17 —3 “ —2 0.25 —2 " 2l 0.33 2.3 ~ 2i 0.25 Semi-Interquartile Range, Q 0.13 (& - 22 ) • 1 J P i £ - 0.08 Standard Deviation 0.40 43 TABLE 3 EXTENT OF PARTICIPATION BY SUBJECTS IN STUDY (N = 87) Handedness Group Code I.D. ■ Participation Code Sex r S X 01 1 f r M X 02 1 m r MC 03 2 f r M X 04 1 f 1 MC 05 2 f r S X 06 1 m r sc 07 2 f r MC 08 2 m r S X 09 1 m r M X 10 1 • m r MC 11 2 f r SC 12 2 f r sc 13 2 m r S X 14 1 f na M X 15 0 m na M X 16 0 f na M X 17 0 f r MC 18 2 f 1 SC 19 2 m r S X 20 1 m r SC 21 2 m r MC 22 2 m na S X 23 0 m na S X 24 0 f 1 sc 25 2 f r S X 26 1 m na S X 27 0 f r M X 28 1 f r MC 30a 2 m r M X 31 1 m r S X 33 1 m r M X 34 1 m r SC 35 2 m r M X 36 1 f r MC 37 2 m r S X 38 1 f r M X 39 0 m r MC 40 2 m r SC 41 2 f aUnused random numbers: 29, 32, 42, 48, 53, 57, 58, 67, 76, 96, 97, 98. TABLE 3— Continued 44 Handedness Group Code I.D. Participation Code Sex r S X 43 1 m r MC 44 2 f r M X 45 1 m r SC 46 2 m r M X 47 1 m r S X 49 1 m r SC 50 2 m r MC 51 2 m r SC 52 2 m r S X 54 9 f r MC 55 2 f 1 M X 56 1 m r MC 59 2 m r S X 60 1 m r SC 61 2 m r MC 62 2 m r M X 63 1 f . r SC 64 2 m r MC 65 2 m r MC 66 2 f r MC 68 2 f r S X 69 1 in r sc 70 2 f r MC 71 2 £ r M X 72 1 f r M X 73 1 m r s X 74 9 f r M X 75 1 m 1 S X 77 1 m r M X 78 1 in r MC 79 . 2 f r M X 80 1 m r S X 81 1 m r MC 82 2 m r SC 83 2 m r S X 84 1 f r MC 85 2 m r SC 86 2 m r M X 87 1 m 1 M X 88 1 f TABLE 3— Continued 45 Handedness Group Code I.D. Participation Code Sex r S X 89 1 m r MC 90 5 m r M X • 91 1 f 1 S X 92 1 m 1 S X 93 6 m 1 S X 94 6 m r sc 95 2 m r M X 99 2 m Group Code: M X = Experimental Group M S X = Experimental Group S MC = Control Group M SC = Control Group S Participation Code: 1 = Specimen & Questionnaire, both sessions 2 = No Questionnaire, both sessions 3 = No Specimen, both sessions 4 = No Specimen, first session 5 = No Specimen, second session 6 = No Questionnaire, first session 7 = No Questionnaire, second session 8 = No Questionnaire or Specimen, first session 9 = No Questionnaire or Specimen, second session 0 = Parental Refusal TABLE 3— Continued 45 Handedness Group Code I.D. Participation Code Sex r S X 89 1 m r MC 90 5 m r M X 91 1 f 1 S X 92 1 m 1 S X 93 6 m 1 S X 94 6 m r sc 95 2 m r M X 99 2 m Group Code: M X = Experimental Group M S X = Experimental Group S MC = Control Group M SC = Control Group S Participation Code: 1 = Specimen & Questionnaire, both sessions 2 = No Questionnaire, both sessions 3 = No Specimen, both sessions 4 = No Specimen, first session 5 = No Specimen, second session 6 = No Questionnaire, first session 7 = No Questionnaire, second session 8 = No Questionnaire or Specimen, first session 9 = No Questionnaire or Specimen, second session 0 = Parental Refusal 46 TABLE 4 DISTRIBUTION OF SEX AND HANDEDNESS OF SUBJECTS (N = 80)a Characteristic Male Female Total Right Hand 45 26 71 Left Hand 06 03 09 Total 51 29 80 aThree males and four females did not participate. breakdown of the sample by sex and handedness. 47 The Experimental Group This group is so named only because data was collected from them in the form of responses to the personality questionnaire after they wrote their handwriting specimens. Two homerooms comprise this group, which remained intact for the duration of the data collection; the first homeroom was coded MX, the other was coded SX (X for experi mental group, and M or S for the homeroom teacher) . The MX group contained 24 pupils, but four of these did not take part in the personality testing due to parental refusal: Two were boys and two were girls (MX15, MX16, MX17, MX39). The remaining 20 subjects comprise one part of the experimental group. The other part came from homeroom SX, which normally contained 23 pupils, plus one home-study pupil (SX27); two of the 23 could not take part in the personality testing due to parental refusal; one boy and one girl (SX23, SX24); thus, there were 21 subjects in this part of the experimental group. Even though the experimental group contained 41 subjects, there were not 41 scores available for each variable during the two sessions of testing due to absences. Pupil MX99 was absent for both sessions of testing, but submitted two specimens of handwriting; pupils SX54 and SX74 were absent from the second session, but both were tested during the first session and submitted samples of their hand writing; pupils SX94 and SX93 were not present for testing the first session, but both were tested the second session and submitted hand- 48 writing specimens for both sessions. Table 5 displays this information. The Control Group Since none of the pupils in this group was administered the personality questionnaire, no parental permissions were required; thus, all pupils in the two intact classrooms took part by submitting data in the form of handwriting specimens. The first homeroom group was coded MC, the other one coded SC (C for Control Group, and M or S for the homeroom teacher); MC contained 22 pupils, while SC had 17 pupils. Thus, the control group had a total of 39 subjects. Instrumentation Handwriting Exemplar A standardized text for the pupils to use in preparing their handwriting specimens was selected from the regular sixth-grade spelling book; a copy appears in the Appendices of this study. The text lent itself to being copied verbatim, was long enough to provide a representative sample of handwriting variables (70 words with 348 letters), and the suggested directions could be followed by the control group five weeks later to paraphrase the passage, adding corrections as needed, without departing seriously from the given letter structures. It is an ideal text to use when a large number of specimens are to be analyzed with consistency. Paper and Pencils Uniformity of testing materials and conditions is important for 49 TABLE 5 PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRES COLLECTED FROM EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS CLASSIFIED BY SEX AND FORM OF TEST (N = 41) Group M I X S 1 X Form A Form B Form A Form B Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 3a 3 9 4 7a 4 6a 2 Five-week Interval Group M 2 X S 2 X Form B Form A Form B Form A Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 3a 3 9 4 8 2b 6a 2 Subjects absent = 1 ^Subjects absent = 2 50 reliability and thus for validity in studies such as this one. This control was provided by issuing each subject identical pencils to use for writing his specimen; these pencils were machine-scoring pencils from the California Test Bureau, each uniformly sharpened by the same electric pencil-sharpener. The graphite core of such pencils is soft enough to provide a basis for evaluating the pressure applied by the writer to the writing surface. Each subject was issued a paper-pack made up of six unruled sheets of white paper (8-2 x 11 inches) stapled together in the upper left comer; the paper was of the type used to ditto copies, and closely resembles the notebook paper used by pupils, except that it was plain rather than ruled. This feature placed no artificial restraints upon the writer, and permitted full measurement range in such variables as distance between lines, inclination of the lines, width of the top border, and width of the left border. The "six-pack" of paper sheets provided a uniform writing surface for each specimen, since any sheet used was folded under the others while the top sheet was used for writing, maintaining a constant thickness of material to absorb the pressure applied by the writer. Personality Questionnaire The validation criterion for this study was Cattell and Beloff's Jr.-Sr. High School Personality Questionnaire (HSPQ). This test was selected not only because it afforded an excellent basis for replication of studies by Naegler (1962) and Mann (1961) which used Cattell's Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, but also for its inherent qualities which make it suitable as a criterion: HSPQ covers all the major dimensions factoranalytically demonstrable in any attempt to describe individual differences comprehensively, is conveni ently applied in the classroom, deals with psychologically meaningful and predictively important traits having demonstrable functional unity, covers an age range of twelve to eighteen years, and comes with an extensive and comprehensive manual describing every feature of the test, including 212 research references. The fact that the test is used presently in over twenty-six different countries is significant. The manual prepared by Cattell (1969) lists for each of the fourteen personality factors coefficients of validity, dependability, stability, homogeneity, equivalence, but not of transferability. This informa tion is displayed in Table 6. HSPQ is presently available in Forms A, B, C, and D; only Forms A and B were used in this study (1968-1969 Edition). Data Collection Preparation The elementary school psychologist of the school district in question was approached about the feasibility of the study; he advised the experimenter to submit copies of the alternate forms of the personality questionnaire for approval by himself and the superinten dent of schools before securing the approval of the local school principal. When this had been done, and the principal had been apprised of the purposes of the study, a parental permission form was drawn up, printed on official school letterheads, and mailed to the 52 TABLE 6 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY COEFFICIENTS FOR CRITERION VARIABLES Factor rd rs rh re rv(e) A 94 76 37 55 76 B 89 74 57 63 81 C 86 70 42 61 80 D 90 79 45 46 71 E 85 71 49 57 77 F 90 68 45 56 76 G 86 70 56 61 80 H 91 82 55 67 83 I 96 78 58 65 82 J 86 70 31 43 68 0 86 68 57 62 79 q2 91 71 40 49 73 Q3 88 72 52 50 73 Q4 r * j . 69 55 59 79 = dependability coefficient of two forms, immediate retest rs = stability coefficients of two forms, six-month interval rh = homogeneity coefficients, two forms re = equivalence coefficients, corrected to two-form length rv(e) = direct validity coefficients, from equivalences, two forms (decimal points have been emitted) (from Cattell's manual, 1969) 53 homes of the subjects, the 87 members of the sixth grade. A copy of the parental permission form is displayed in the Appendices. Most of the forms were returned at once, and telephone calls expedited the return of the rest. The four homeroom teachers of the subjects were called together and briefed on the procedures for administering the criterion test and for collecting the handwriting specimens; specimen copies of the instruments were demonstrated for them, and questions were answered. First Administration Session The HSPQ answer sheets were marked by circling the appropriate form (A or B); these were then inserted into matching copies of IISPQ, 25 being Form A and 25 Form B. These prepared test copies were then alternated (ABABA etc.) in two stacks, one for each of the experi mental groups, MX and SX. Extra copies were made available. The alternating forms of the criterion was an attempt to assure random distribution, regardless of the way the pupils were seated in the homerooms. These two stacks of alternating copies were given to the two homeroom teachers, together with an over-supply of sharpened pencils, and ample numbers of paper "six-packs" for collecting the handwriting specimens. The teachers were asked to administer the handwritten portion of the project first in all four homerooms, and then the two teachers of the experimental groups were to give the criterion test afterwards. Those who did not secure parental permission for psychological testing did other work in their rooms while the rest of the subjects took the 54 test, but all wrote the liandwriting specimens. The investigator was not present for any of the data collection to assure minimal interference in homeroom procedures. Collection of the handwriting. Special pencils were given to each subject; if the pencil point broke, the whole pencil was replaced rather than re-sharpening it with the classroom pencil-sharpener. This assured more time for writing the specimen. Subjects were instructed to write at their normal speeds and to copy word-for-word the text on page 12 of their spelling books. The specimen was to be copied on the second sheet of the "six-pack", after the subject wrote his name and hand used for writing on the top sheet, which was then folded under neath to insure a standard thickness of six sheets for the writing surface. Subjects were asked to remove all other materials from their desks, and to put nothing else under the paper-pack while writing. The teachers in all four classrooms were instructed to allow each subject to complete his specimen before it was collected from him, and to verify left-handed writers while they were in the process of writing so that this information could be checked when the pupil submitted his specimen. Pencils were collected so they could be prepared for the second session five weeks later. Collection of the personality questionnaire responses. In the experimental groups, after the handwriting portion of the project was completed, the teachers distributed the copies of the test with answer sheets inserted to each of the subjects, alternating Form A with Form B. The pupils were asked to verify that their answer sheets indeed corresponded with the HSPQ form they received. Instructions 55 were read aloud as the subjects read than silently and did the sample items. The subjects were started together, and paced at intervals of ten, twenty, and thirty minutes with admonitions to go faster if they had not completed items 35, 70, and 105, respectively. Although the HSPQ is not a timed test, instructions call for responses to be made with undue delays. Teachers were instructed to collect booklets and answer sheets as each subject finished. These were then given to the investigator for scoring. Second Administration Session Test booklets for the criterion were examined for pencil marks, which were erased, and reorganized to permit each subject to take the alternate form. Answer sheets were assigned by name bo assure that no student would repeat the same form; again, these were inserted into the HSPQ copies and stacked according to homeroom. Special testing pencils were re-sharpened using the same electric pencil sharpener. The handwriting specimens were examined for name and handedness on the top sheet of each paper-pack; then the top three sheets (script sandwiched in the middle) were stapled at the bottom right comer to prevent the writer frcm later altering the first specimen, as yet unscored. The same six sheets would serve as the writing surface for the second specimen, to be written on the fifth sheet (and continued on the sixth, if needed); the fourth sheet would be used again for the writer's name and hand used to write the speci men. Because the instructions were not followed exactly by seme teachers and students, an emphasized written format for instructions 56 during the second session was used. A copy appears in the Appendices to this study. The members of the control group were instructed to follow explicitly the instructions given on page 12 of their spelling books; i.e., to find the errors, then rewrite the story correctly in good sentences, and write a headline for it. This mode of paraphrasing the standardized text permits the writer to be more spontaneous in his production of the specimen, bringing more of his total personality into play, as it were. Eysenck (1948) required his 198 Ss to write a short signed essay on the subject, "My breakfast this morning", on unlined, standard paper using either their own fountain pens or a pen selected by themselves from three standard thicknesses. Eysenck commented that free composition rather than copying was used to control the possi bility that, in copying, a person's temperament may show up less well; this represented a change of controls over his 1945 study, wherein specimens were copied so that the contents would not influence tire graphologist's analysis of the handwriting variables. Table 7 displays the original research design. Scoring and Translation Each set of handwriting specimens and each set of questionnaire responses were coded, using the random numbers displayed above in Table 3; those from the first session were further designated by a 1 in the prefix, and those from the second session were further coded with a 2 in the prefix; e.g., data for pupil 75 from the experimental group in homeroom MX were coded M1X75 for the first session, and M2X75 57 TABLE 7 ORIGINAL DESIGN FOR DATA COLLECTION {N = 80) Item Experimental Groups Control Groups Class M I X S I X M I C S I C First Session Copy Specimen with Pencil; take HSPQ. Copy Specimen with Pencil; take HSPQ. Copy Specimen with Pencil. Copy Specimen with Pencil. Form A=10 B=10 A=10 B=ll N=22 N=17 Five-week Interval Class M 2 X S 2 X M 2 C S 2 C Second Session Copy Specimen with Pencil; take HSPQ alternate form. Copy Specimen with Pencil; take HSPQ alternate form. Paraphrase Specimen with Pencil. Paraphrase Specimen with Pencil. Form A=10 B=10 A=10 B=ll N=22 N=17 Note.— Total HSPQ = 82 or 41 pairs; total Specimens = 160 or 80 pairs 58 for the second session. This plan facilitated pairing data for statistical comparisons during computer processing. Number coding, instead of initials or acronyms based on the subject's name, was used to prevent associations being recalled too readily by the investiga tors. A list of names with corresponding code numbers was made to assure accuracy, but was not referred to subsequently during analysis. Handwriting specimens were removed from the "six-packs" during the coding, and the extra sheets used for names and handedness data were stored separately. The members of Control Group MC had written their names and "hand used" at the top right comer of their first-session specimens; this information was clipped off at an angle to preserve the general appearance of the writing on the page with respect to borders. Only one subject continued the specimen onto a second sheet, having written with larger script than the others. The questionnaire responses were scored first, since less time would be required than for measurement of the handwriting specimens. The stencil key provided with the answer sheets was used to score each subject's responses; these raw scores were then converted to standard ten ("sten") scores, according to the Tabular Supplement with Norms for the 1968-69 HSPQ Edition (Forms A and B for Males and for Females) . It was found that conversion from raw scores to sten scores permitted inclusion of those cases where a subject had omitted an item contrary to instructions, by using the more conservative sten score value for the corresponding raw score value; the number of missing values thus treated was so small, however, that their total effect was negligible. All converted scores were verified by a second person. Each subject 59 had three sten scores for each session in which he took part: Form A, Form B, and a combined-forms (A+B) score. These scores were later translated to data cards by key-punching, along with the data from the handwriting specimens. A copy of the report form for recording measurement values of each handwriting specimen was paired with each subject's specimens. This report form was organized to facilitate both the output from the handwriting measurement procedure and the input for the key-punching procedure; it was admittedly a compromise to minimize repeated handling of the values involved. An exemplar report form appears in the Appendices. Thus paired, the specimens for each homeroom were arranged in numerical order according to their code numbers for analysis (scoring) according to the operational definitions of the handwriting variables. It was considered more objective to measure one or two variables at a time for the entire set of specimens, rather than to measure all of the variables for each specimen at a time. Only when the measurement requirements were similar was more than one variable evaluated for the entire set; for example, Width of the Top Border (#1) and Width of the Bottom Border (#2) were measured together, as were Inclination of the Writing Lines (#9) and Span of Inclination (#10). The actual time required for measuring each variable or combination of variables was recorded in minutes to permit an average value to be calculated for making a judgment about the practicality of the operational definition. These values appear in the list of definitions included in the Appendices to this study. 60 Neatness and spelling were not considered in any way important to the measurement procedures as given in the operational definitions for the handwriting variables. These are the only two characteristics of handwriting which appear to be specifically the concern of the classroom teacher in promoting ccrrmunication through writing. When scoring was completed for all handwriting variables for all subjects, the data were key punched onto cards by the investigator. Each subject was given values for 128 variables for each of the two sessions: five of these variables dealt with code-identification, sex, handedness, extent of participation in the study, and order in which the HSPQ forms (A, B) were taken; 81 of the variables represented the handwriting values, and 42 of the variables represented the three sten scores for each of the 14 HSPQ personality factors. All data cards were verified against the scoring report-forms; the few errors that were detected were corrected and the cards re-punched. These data cards served as input for all computer processing during the statistical analysis. Table 5 above displays information about the questionnaires collected; Table 8 displays information about the specimens collected. Treatment of the Data The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, 1970) and the up-dated manual were used to format the statistical analyses. SPSS has the capacity and flexibility required for handling the number of variables, cases, and data-transformation with consistency for a large variety of subroutines. The experimenter was trained in the use 61 TABLE 8 HANDWRITING SPECIMENS COLLECTED (N = 80) Item Experimental Groups Control Groups Class M I X S I X M I C S I C Copied Specimen with Pencil. Copied Specimen with Pencil. Copied Specimen with Pencil. Copied Specimen with PEN. N = 11 00 i —i 1 1 2 N = 12 N = 17 Para phrased Specimen with Pencil. Para phrased Specimen with Pencil. Para phrased Specimen with Pencil. Para phrased Specimen with PEN. N = 9 N = 3 o i —i I I 2 N = 0 Five-wee): Interval Class M 2 X S 2 X M 2 C S 2 C Copied Copied Para Para Specimen Specimen phrased phrased with with Specimen Specimen Pencil. Pencil. with with Pencil. Pencil. N = 20 N = 19a N = 21 N = 17 Note.— Total Specimens collected = 157 (77 pairs) aSubjects absent = 2 ^Subjects absent = 1 62 of computers in educational applications at the University of Southern California, using the facilities of the University Computer Center with its I.B.M. 370/155 electronic computer. SPSS subroutine CONDESCRIPTIVE was run for all handwriting variables and for the fourteen combined-score personality variables, for each of the subfiles and for the combined subfiles (four homerooms X two sessions - eight subfiles). The yield from this subroutine included the mean, standard error of the mean, standard deviation of the mean, variance, kurtosis and skewness of the distribution, the range of scores, and maximum and minimum values. A general picture of the entire set of data was thus generated. Subroutine PEARSON CORR was run for all pairs of variables (except ##34, 35, and 40, which had no values) for the experimental group (four combined subfiles: MIX, M2X, SIX, S2X). Output from this run included a paper printout of 4,186 non-redundant Pearson product- -moment correlation coefficients and a matrix output on cards of the 92 X 92 matrix of 8,464 redundant Pearson p.m. correlation coeffici ents, which latter provided for efficient input for subroutines REGRESSION and FACTOR. These coefficients relate to validity of handwriting variables as predictors of personality factors; therefore, the reliability of the coefficients involving the 14 combined-score personality variables was enhanced, using formulas suggested by Guilford (1965) for correction to attenuated values. This procedure was advised by Mann (1961), although he did not use it himself. The reliability coefficients are "projected" to theoretical limits which would exist if the criterion variables were perfectly measured. 63 The formulas for correction to attenuated values follow: Attenuated r , ^ = ( rTW, _,J/{ r__ ) ^ H^7, PQ HW,PQ PQ,PQ where r^ = the correlation between a handwriting ' variable and a personality variable, and rpn = the correlation between two scores for a personality variable (a stability coefficient of reliability, rs) Attenuated rpQ>pQ = ( ) [( ( rPQ2,KJ2)1 2 where rpQ p~ = the correlation of one personality 1, 2 variable with another personality variable, and r-pQ Pq and r^ are stability coefficients 1,1 3,2 between one personality variable and another. The number of possible coefficients in the 92 X 92 matrix affected by these changes was 2,366; only 297 of these values were 0.2000 or more before attenuation, and only 28 of these values were affected enough to increase the digit in the tenths or hundredths decimal places. Thus, approximately one percent of the possible significant values was attenuated, none by more than 0.1150: Factor H with Factor J was increased 0.1131, Factor J with Factor O was increased 0.0949, Factor D with Factor H was increased 0.0775, and the rest were less. Once these values were calculated, using a prograitmable desk- -calculator, the appropriate cards from the matrix deck (output from PEARSON CORR) were re-punched with corrected values for input to 64 an SPSS subroutine REGRESSION. The *SELECT IF procedure was used to yield the means and standard deviations for Form A subjects, for Form B subjects, and for Forms A+B combined, for scores of all fourteen personality variables; these values were the basis for calculating reliability coefficients and uncorrelated t tests for the personality variables; a programmable desk-calculator and a small computer programmed in BASIC Fortran language were used for this step. Again, formulas suggested by Guilford (1965) were used in computing reliability coefficients of equivalence (r ) and of stability (r^): r e 1 + 4< rAl,Bl + rB2,A2) where r/v B ~ a Personality variable's correlation between 11 1 Form A on the first session and Form B on the second session, and rQ ^ = a personality variable's correlation between 2' 2 Form B on the first session and Form A on the second session. r = s rA+B,B+A 1 + rA+B,B+A where r^+B B+A = a personality variable's combined-forms ' correlation betv/een first-session scores and second-session scores. This last formula is an application of the Spearman-Brown split-half formula for reliability. Table 9 displays the reliability coefficients for the 14 HSPQ factors, as computed by the investigator. 65 TABLE 9 RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR PERSONALITY VARIABLES ( N = 36 ) Factor r a A,B r b B,A r c e rA+B,B+A r d s A 0.9330 0.9286 0.9642 0.9857 0.9928 B 0.9413 0.9347 0.9680 0.9872 0.9936 C 0.9636 0.8188 0.9425 1.0000 1.0000 D 0.8700 0.8626 0.9284 0.9936 0.9968 E 0.9211 0.8303 0.9337 0.9669 0.9832 F 0.9525 0.8546 0.9493 0.9363 0.9671 G 0.9434 0.9714 0.9782 0.9938 0.9969 H 0.9494 0.8576 0.9493 0.9006 0.9477 I 0.9120 0.8971 0.9499 0.9939 0.9969 J 0.8698 0.7530 0.8959 0.8526 0.9204 0 0.8181 0.9263 0.9317 0.9760 0.9879 Q2 0.9423 0.8790 0.9532 0.9709 0.9852 q3 0.8698 0.8717 0.9309 0.9275 0.9624 0.9183 0.8661 0.9430 0.9951 0.9975 aN = 15 k f c j = 21 cCoefficient of Equivalence ^Coefficient of Stability 66 Next, the WRITE CASES procedure of SPSS was utilized to output individual values for all handwriting variables for each subject's T-scores for the first session, for the second session, and their difference. This information provides for construction of individual profiles for all handwriting variables in subsequent research. Frequency distributions for 46 of the handwriting variables were observed to be sufficiently skewed to interfere with meaningful interpretation of t tests. Therefore, the COMPUTE procedure was used to perform logarithmic (base 10) transformations for these variables, based on Guilford's suggestion (1965) that the personality dimensions underlying these frequency distributions can be assumed to be continu ous and normally-distributed. Relevant here also are Guilford's remarks concerning linearity of regression and homoscedasticity of distributions (homogeneous variances for distributions): Among test scores, linear relationships are apparently the almost universal type of regression. Normality, or near normality, in both distributions correlated is almost sufficient in itself to promote linearity. Outside the sphere of psychological and educational tests, however, or when non-test variables [e.g., chronological age] are correlated with test scores, we sometimes encounter curved trends in the scatter diagrams, (pp. 308, 314) Finally, extensive t tests were run for all handwriting variables (except for ##34, 35, and 40, which had no values); seme of these were for groups of uncorrelated data, and seme for groups of correlated data. Output from these t tests permitted judgments relating to questions of the various controls built into the research design. Justification for so many t tests, in view of the chance- -occurrence of significant t values, is based not so much on the 67 population of subjects as on the discrete populations of handwriting variables uniquely distributed over the population of subjects. Methodological Assumptions The following assumptions were made for this study: 1. Handwriting is an expressive movement. 2. Personality characteristics of the subject are revealed through this expressive movement. 3. Personality characteristics as revealed in handwriting can be assessed. 4. A trained Graphoanalyst can evaluate personality character istics frcm a subject's handwriting using a list of operational definitions to specify the handwriting variables. 5. The criterion (HSPQ) measures personality factors validly and reliably in the experimental situation. 6. The subjects answer the questionnaire items honestly. 7. The subjects do not fake their handwriting specimens. 8. Pearson coefficients of correlation are based on distributions which are honoscedastic and possess linearity of regression. Limitations The limitations in this investigation existed to the extent that the assumptions were not fulfilled, despite the numerous controls which were used. The sample population of subjects may be judged a- typical of average seventh-graders, if based on considerations of socio-economic status rather than performance. The size of the sample precluded an effective analysis of variance design to control effects 68 due to differences between homeroom groups. As many features as possible were included from those suggested by Campbell and Stanley (1966) for experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research; effects of sex and handedness interactions were not controlled either, as suggested by Hoepfner (1962), but the data were so identified as to provide for this in further research. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS The purpose of this chapter is to present the findings of the study. The questions are evaluated in terms of the results of the statistical treatment of the data. The general hypotheses are discussed in the final summary section. Questions relating to Reliability Question 1: Are the variables found in a subject's handwriting specimen consistent (stable) over a five-week period of time? If so, which ones are stable? The question of stability of handwriting variables in a subject's handwriting over a five-week interval was answered in two different ways: the number of subjects who possessed a significant number of stable variables, and a rank-ordering of variables according to their stability over a five-week interval. Using the means and standard deviations for each variable from the combined-groups scores, T-scores were computed for the first session, for the second session, and their difference for each subject. The results appear in Appendix G. This set of data was scanned for the T-score differences beyond two standard deviations, for T-soore differences beyond one standard deviation but less than two standard deviations from the mean for each variable for each subject. The number of subjects who possessed 70 a significant number of stable variables is displayed in Table 10. The rank-ordering of variables according to their stability over the five-week interval is displayed in Table 11. Table 12 briefly identifies each handwriting variable by name and number; for more complete information, see Appendix A. The null hypothesis implicit in Question 1 can be safely rejected at the .95 level of confidence of confidence (alpha = .05); 97.4% of the subjects were found to have at least 90% of their hand writing variables deviating not more than 20 points on the T-scale over the five-week interval. In fact, 94.8% of the subjects were found to have at least 77% of their handwriting variables with deviations not more than 10 points on the T-scale over the five-week interval. These percentages reflect expectations based on a normally- -distributed population of subjects. Visual inspection of the T-scores in Appendix G makes it possible for an investigator to isolate just which subjects exhibited the most variability in their handwriting specimens over the five-week period of time; for example, in this study, pupils SC46 and SC95, respectively, exhibited nine and ten variables which deviated more than 20 points frcm first session to second, on the T-scale. Such varia bility within a subject has been shown to affect the quality of an analysis of his handwriting. Eysenck (1945) pointed out the difference in "ease of interpretation" of people's handwriting. The graphologist in the study completely misjudged intelligence of subjects whose temperamental traits were judged hardly better than chance; those subjects whose intelligence was judged with a certain amount of 71 TABLE 10 SUBJECTS POSSESSING STABLE HANDWRITING VARIABLES ( N = 77 ) CALCULATED BY T-SCORE DIFFERENCES Percentage of variables per subject Within 2 S.D. of mean Within 1 S.D. of mean At least 90% ....... 97.4% 50.7% (70/78) (75/77) (39/77) At least 86% ........ 100% 70.1% (67/78) (54/77) At least 77% ........ 100% 94.8% (60/78) (73/77) Note.— Stable variables were those with T-score difference significant at .05 level. TABLE 11 STABILITY OF HANDWRITING VARIABLES OVER FIVE-WEEK INTERVAL RANKED BY FREQUENCY OF EXTREME T-SCORES ( N = 77 ) 2 S.D. Beyond Mean 1 S.D. Beyond Mean Variable I.D. Frequency Frequency Variable I.D. 11,12,13,15,16, 0 . ......... 33 33,36,38,39,43, 1 . . . 15,29,36,75 48,49,50,51,53,57, 2 . • • • 11,12,13,16,24 67,75,77,78,79,80 ... 0 3 . • • • 23,42,46,48,50, 06,14,17,18,19, 4 . 57,58,78,79 28,45,51,53,77 20,23,28,29,31, 5 . • * 13,19,31,52,65 42,44,46,47,52, 6 • • 20,49,60,64,69, 60,61,62,63,64, 65,69,71,72 ......... 1 7 . • * 71,72 18,21,39,47,74 8 . . 06,26,30,67 07,08,21,24,26, 9 . . . . 41,43,44 41,54,56,70,74,76 ... 2 10 . . . 32,56,63 11 . ....... 68,73 02,09,22,58,66, 12 . . 25,38,70,76 68,73 ............... 3 13 . . 08,61,62,66 14 . ......... 80 45,55 ............... 4 15 . ......... 54 03,04,30,32 ......... 5 17 . . 02,03,22,27 18 . . . 05,10,37 10. ................ 6 19 . ....... 07,09 20 . ........17 2 5 ................. 7 22 . ........04 01,05,27,37,59 .... 8 23 . ........59 24 . 27 . ....... 01 73A.................48 68 . Note.— Each ranking contains 78 variables; emitted are ##34,35, & 40. 73 TABLE 12 HANDWRITING VARIABLES IDENTIFIED BY NUMBER AND NAME 1. Width of the Top Border 38. Stroke Endings, Blunt 2. Width of the Bottom Border 39. Stroke Endings, Straight 3. Left Border Width 40. Stroke Endings, Heavy 4. Right Border Width 41. High Final Strokes 5. Paragraph Indenture 42. Final Backstrokes 6. Distance between Words 43. Right-tapered Formations 7. Word Distance Span 44. Left-tapered Formations 8. Distance between Lines 45. Retrace/"Break-away" Strokes 9. Inclination, Writing Lines 46. Stroke Formation, Top-Shape 10. Span of Inclination 47. Greek-style Formations 11. Total Loopiness 48. Circle Letters, Open 12. Upper Zone Loopiness 49. Circle Letters, Clean 13. Lower Zone Loopiness 50. Retraced T- & D-stems 14. Middle Zone Loopiness 51. T-Bar, Height on T-stem 15. Loop Shape 52. T-Bar, Weight (Pressure) 16. Balance of Loops 53. T-Bar, Length 17. Tie Strokes 54. T-Bar, Cup-shaped 18. Figure "8" Strokes 55. T-Bar, Cap-shaped 19. Lower-looped p 56. T-Bar, Tilted & Tapered 20. High p-stem 57. Precise i- & j-dots, T-Bars 21. Absence of Leaders 58. T-Bar, Right of Stem 22. Initial Hooks 59. T-Bar, Left of Stem 23. Final Hooks 60. Circle-shaped i- & j-dots 24. Initial U.Z. Fluid Strokes 61. Round i- & j-dots, Periods 25. Angled Initial Strokes 62. "Jabbed" i- & j-dots, Periods 26. Straight Initial Strokes, 63. "Cactus-spine" Strokes Middle/Lower Zones 64. Width of the Letters 27. Initial Loop, Left-to-right 65. Slant of the Letters 28. Descenders with Small Loop 66. Distance between Letters 29. Descenders, Unlooped 67. Height of the Middle Zone 30. "Hair-pins" 68. Height of Capital Letters 31. Ascenders, Unlooped 69. Height, Upper Zone Letters 32. Line Overlap 70. Height of T's & D's 33. Legibility 71. Height of Lower Zone 34. Line Fillers 72. Intra-word Anomalies 35. Connectors between Words 73. Length of Final Strokes 36. Disconnectedness 73A Frequency of Long Finals 37. Pressure (depth) 74. Sum: Upper Zone Height + Lower Zone Height 75. Ratio of Middle Zone Height to U.Z. Height + L.Z. Height 76. Ratio of Upper Zone Letter Height to Capital Letter Height 77. Width-to-Height Ratio for Middle Zone Letters 78. Width-to-Height Ratio for Upper Zone Letters 79. Width-to-Height Ratio for Lower Zone Letters 80. Width-to-Height Ratio for Capitals_____________________ _ 74 success were also those whose temperamental traits were judged considerately better than chance. The above method of basing stability upon differences of T-scores was compared with the method of basing stability on ranking of z scores. Using data from subroutine COMDESCRIPTIVE for the combined subfiles (i.e., all subjects' scores) for the 78 handwriting variables, and using data from COM)ESCRIPTIVE for each of the subfiles (i.e., each homeroom for each of the two sessions) an average z score was calculated according to the following formula: - = [{MM1X " ^ X ^ ^ I X “ ^S2X^+ ^^MlC “ I ^M2C) + (MS1C " ^ dLUXc ■ ' " ■ ■ ■ —>— ■ ' » ' i-< ■ ■ 4<S-D-ccc(b.) where M^x = the subgroup MX mean for the first session for any handwriting variable, = the subgroup MX mean for the second session for that same handwriting variable, and S.D.con£> = the ccmbined-groups standard deviation for that same handwriting variable. The absolute value of the mean z score for each variable was used to rank-order all 78 variables; results are displayed in Table 13. Despite the variations between the two tables of stability for these handwriting variables, certain similarities can be seen, among others. Four of the variables rank in the top quarter of both lists, and can be termed "most stable": ##12, 23, 48, and 54. Seven of than rank in the second quarter of both lists as "quite stable": ##18, 31, 38, 42, 67, 71, and 72. Eight variables rank in the third quarter of both lists, termed "slightly stable": ##8, 26, 47, 56, 61, 63, 70, and 75 TABLE 13 STABILITY OF HANDWRITING VARIABLES OVER FIVE-WEEK INTERVAL ( N = 80 ) Mean z score Variable I.D. 0.03........................ 17,19 0.04 0.05...........................32 0.06 0.07........................... 65 0.08 ................. 12,30,48,60 0.09-................... 20,23,58 0.10........................ 28,46 0.11 ................. 02,39,53,73 0.12........................ 24,44 0.13 ................03,04,06,25,42 0.14........................ 29,72 0.15.................. 16,41,51,61 0.16........................ 11,75 0.17 ........ 14,18,21,31,38,67,71 0.18 ................... 43,63,73A 0.19..................... 13,49 0.20 ..................... 22,78 0.21 ........... 08,09,26,59,61,74 0.22........................... 69 0.23 ................... 54,55,56 0.24........................... 70 0.25........................... 77 0.26 ............. 07,33,36,62,79 0.27........................... 50 0.28........................ 15,57 0.29 0.30 0.31 ................... 45,47,64 0.32 0.33..................... 10,68 0.34 0.35...........................80 0.39...........................52 0.40 0.41...........................05 0.44...........................76 0.47...........................27 0.55........................ 01,37 Note.— Variables are ranked from most-stable to least-stable. #74. Seven rank in the bottom quarter of both lists as "least stable" ##1, 5, 7, 10, 27, 37, and 54. In an exploratory study such as this, these findings can merely suggest directions for further research. Question 2; Is the measurement of a subject's handwriting variables by one handwriting analyst consistent with the measure ment of the same subject's handwriting variables by another handwriting analyst? The question of consistency between handwriting analysts was decided on the basis of a subsample of specimens ( N = 32 ). Four specimens were selected at random from each of the eight subgroups and delivered to a well-trained Graphoanalyst, along with the list of operational definitions for handwriting variables; use of the measure ment instruments and capabilities of the electronic desk-calculator used by the investigator were demonstrated to the Graphoanalyst, who admitted she had no more than the average lay person's skills in doing arithmetic computations. Subjects selected for the inter-analyst reliability subsample are listed in Table 14; Table 15 displays the means, standard deviations, coefficients of equivalence, and z values for the handwriting variables measured by both analysts. The investigator estimated on the basis of his own measure ments that about two hours would be needed for each specimen; however, the second Graphoanalyst was unable to complete her measurements for every variable during the time allotted, due to other cormitments arising subsequent to her employment. As a result, only 60 of the 81 original variables listed were scored and reported; variables based on 77 TABLE 14 INTER-ANALYST RELIABILITY SUBSAMPLE IDENTIFIED BY SPECIMEN- AND GROUP-CODE NUMBERS ( N = 32 ) MIX M2X SIX S2X MIC M2C SIC S2C 47 28 38 20 18 11 07 13 72 36 43 81 30 30 25 41 87 72 49 92 51 62 35 46 91 73 94 94 90 65 86 50 78 TABLE 15 INTER-ANALYST RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS, WITH MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND z VALUES ( N = 32 ) Handwriting Variable Mi m2 S .D. 2_ S.D.2 rl,2 z 1 35.3 33.6 12.7 11.9 .779 0.413 2 87.3 90.8 41.6 41.9 .999 -3.676* 3 29.0 32.2 18.4 18.9 .915 -1.368* 4 27.8 26.7 12.3 12.5 .946 0.679 5 8.4 10.0 11.2 11.0 .609 -1.081* 6 3.8 4.3 1.7 1.7 .999 -5.000* 7 7.1 6.5 2.5 2.4 .674 0.606 8 10.9 10.8 2.2 2.1 .998 0.833* 11 83.9 70.5 16.6 12.6 .914 2.158* 12 55.8 51.6 17.3 15.8 .961 1.500* 13 68.2 66.6 13.9 16.0 .923 0.336 14 93.4 76.3 20.8 15.6 .729 1.477* 16 6.7 9.7 18.7 18.3 .462 -1.875* 17 0.3 2.1 0.5 7.0 .449 -5.000* 18 2.1 0.2 0.9 0.5 .417 5.278* 19 25.8 24.3 27.2 28.1 .997 3.409* 20 13.8 22.6 22.2 30.2 .929 4.444* 21 1.8 3.7 4.2 7.4 .860 4.524* 22 5.8 6.6 3.6 5.3 .258 0.588 23 7.1 15.5 7.8 13.3 .582 3.668* 24 0.2 0.3 1.0 0.6 .000 -1.667* 25 1.7 1.1 4.0 2.2 .754 3.000* 26 14.3 3.0 15.0 6.2 .392 4.689* 27 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.8 .802 3.333* 28 3.8 2.5 6.7 5.6 .965 4.727* 29 1.5 0.6 3.1 1.9 .107 3.226* 30 0.6 0.6 1.5 1.9 .699 ----- 31 0.6 0.6 2.2 2.0 .999 ----- 32 45.1 36.7 72.3 64.2 .999 5.455* 33 99.1 97.8 2.0 5.7 .435 0.069 TABLE 15— Continued 79 Handwriting Variable m2 S.D^ S.D. 2 rl,2 z 36 2.1 0.8 4.0 2.5 .627 4.194* 37 3.3 2.8 0.9 0.8 .872 1.724* 38 35.3 39.8 23.4 22.5 .299 -0.562 39 4.2 9.7 5.2 14.8 .491 -3.618* 41 2.2 44.1 4.8 20.9 .287 5.358* 42 0.3 0.5 1.1 1.9 .884 -4.000* 43 27.8 23.7 14.8 16.9 .355 0.775 44 17.9 15.3 11.7 13.4 .777 1.275* 45 2.2 2.7 0.3 0.7 .860 2.016* 47 0.4 0.02 0.7 5.6 .999 5.429* 48 17.0 20.9 8.9 9.6 .962 2.635* 49 2.1 1.8 0.-8 0.5 .876 1.667* 50 1.7 1.8 0.2 0.3 .909 -0.714 51 1.8 2.1 0.5 0.7 .814 -1.364* 52 2.1 2.3 0.3 0.6 .636 -0.588 53 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.5 .877 -2.500* 54 8.6 14.5 7.6 8.8 .797 -3.554* 55 4.5 14.0 5.7 10.8 .871 -5.135* 57 1.7 1.5 0.3 0.2 .417 0.484 58 0.3 1.5 1.7 4.1 .809 -5.517* 59 2.0 3.4 2.5 4.8 .434 -2.500* 60 3.3 3.1 16.3 16.0 .999 5.000* 61 28.8 45.6 25.3 24.6 .863 -3.692* 62 69.2 48.4 25.5 26.9 .861 3.133* 63 22.3 13.7 22.1 10.9 .704 2.997* 64 3.0 2.9 0.3 0.8 .999 3.333* 65 2.5 2.7 0.8 0.9 .938 1.176* 67 5.3 3.9 1.9 1.3 .776 2.333* 68 10.5 9.1 3.8 3.0 .874 1.522* 70 1.2 1.2 0.3 0.4 .648 * p<^ .05. df = 31. 80 values obtained from previously-measured variables were not included: ##73 to 80, inclusive; the values for #46 were incorrectly reported by the second analyst and were discarded; no values were reported by one analyst or the other for ##34,- 35, 40, and 72, so these variables could not be correlated; nine variabi.es were emitted due to time limitations: ##9, 10, 15, 56, 66, 69, 71, 73, and 73A. The reliability coefficients ranged erratically from .000 to .999; thirty-two of them, however, exceeded .800. Seven were quite low (less than .400), and the remaining twenty-one coefficients fell within the moderate range (.400 to .800). More than half of the measured trait-indications were scored with high consistency by the two analysts. All the correlation coefficients were positive. Inspection of the means for the variables measured by each of the two analysts revealed that most of the values were of similar magnitudes; however, the critical ratios (z values were computed instead of t values) were significant (alpha = .05) for forty-six of the variables. Taken at face value, these z" values would lead to questionable conclusions regarding differences between the group-means; evidence that the variable-population distributions are skewed pre cludes the use of z or t values, which are based on normal, distribu tions. Logarithmic transformations for the values were not done, since the computations for this section were done by hand, rather than by SPSS procedures. The null hypothesis implicit in this question was supported in more than half the variables by the high reliability coefficients; i.e., 32 of the variables were measured with acceptable consistency. Still, 81 enough of the coefficients of equivalence are unacceptably low to warrant further study before definitive conclusions can be drawn. This type of reliability is extremely complex, involving at least five distinct skills on the part of the analysts: (1) understanding the operational definition of the handwriting variable, (2) identifying the variable in the script, (3) measuring the variable accurately, (4) computing the numerical score accurately, and (5) using the report form accurately. Perusal of the report forms showed that each of these skills was used ineffectively in seme cases. Question 3: Are the criterion-variable scores from alternate forms of HSPQ consistent (equivalent) over a five-week interval? If so, which ones are consistent? Results of the t tests indicated that there is no significant difference between alternate forms of the criterion for all variables except Factor B (Intelligence). Apparently, the group mean was significantly greater on this factor as measured by Form B (alpha = .01). The chances for this occurring are less than once in one hundred tests. Yet the coefficient of equivalence for this factor from Table 9 is quite high: 0.9680. Since each subject took both forms of the test, it is quite unlikely that the higher mean for the Form B group is due to greater evidence of intelligence in that group. The actual means were 5.923 (A) and 6.919 (B); this difference may be attributed to chance, and the general null hypothesis may not safely be rejected. Thus, it cannot be said that there is a real lack of equivalence between Forms A and B. Table 16 displays information 82 TABLE 16 FOURTEEN t TESTS FOR CRITERION EQUIVALENCE AND STABILITY Factor Form A with Form B Session 1 (A) with Session 2 (A) Session 1 (B) with Session 2 (B) A -1.3391 0.3856 -0.8630 B -2.9355a 0.2515 0.6776 C ■ 0.0223 -0.1816 -0.9508 D 0.2256 0.6814 0.4914 E -0.1851 0.7833 0.3438 F 0.3013 0.8977 -0.6091 G 0.4422 0.4871 0.0501 H -0.6764 1.0389 -0.6171 I -1.3329 -0.5437 -0.1009 J 0.8780 -2.1418b 0.3008 0 -0.4525 -0.3254 -0.1354 Q2 1.8019 -0.4054 1.4269 Q3 0.9737 -0.7844 0.7187 % -0.7999 0.0642 0.8889 df = 74 df = 37 df = 35 ap<.oi bp<; .05 83 appropriate for evaluation of Questions 3, 4, and 5; Table 17 briefly describes the 14 HSPQ factors. Question 4: Are the criterion-variable scores from alternate Form A consistent (stable) over a five-week interval? If so, which ones are consistent? The stability of Form A over the five-week interval was demonstrated for all criterion variables except Factor J (Zestful vs. Circumspect individualism). The second-session group mean for this factor was significantly greater (alpha = .05) than that for the first session. Evidence from Table 9 indicates that this an inherent weak ness of the factor itself: its coefficients of equivalence and stability are the lowest among the 14 Factors. (Factor J was the one whose correlation coefficients were increased the most by the correc tion for attenuation.) Cattell and Cattell (1969) admitted in the criterion manual that Factors D, J, Q2, and Q3 had some real test inadequacies, with reported coefficients of equivalence of 0.46, 0.43, 0.49, and 0.50, respectively; the value for Factor J was the lowest of the fourteen Factors. Aside from this factor weakness, it cannot be safe to reject the null hypothesis of no differences between the group means; therefore, the stability of Form A is generally not open to question. Question 5: Are the criterion-variable scores from alternate Form B consistent (stable) over a five-week interval? If so, which ones are consistent? There were no significant differences between group means for TABLE 17 DESCRIPTIONS OF 14 FACTORS OF HSPQa Low-Score Description Factor High-Score Description (Sizothymia) RESERVED, detached, critical stiff A (Lower intelligence) DULL, concrete-thinking B (Lower ego strength) AFFECTED BY fEeLINGS C (Phlegmatic temperament) UNDEMONSTRATIVE D (Suhmissiveness) OBEDIENT, mild, easily led E (Desurgency) SOBER, taciturn, serious F (Weaker superego strength) DISREGARDS RULES G (Threctia) SHY, timid, threat-sensitive H (Harria) TOUGH-MINDED, rejects illusions I (Zeppia) ZESTFUL, likes group action J (Untroubled adequacy) SELF-ASSURED, complacent 0 (Group dependency) SOCIABLY GROUP-DEPENDENT Q. (Affectothymia) WARMHEARTED, outgoing (Higher intelligence) BRIGHT, abstract-thinking (Higher ego strength) EMOTIONALLY STABLE, mature (Excitability) EXCITABLE, impatient, demanding (Dominance) ASSERTIVE, aggressive, competitive (Surgency) ENTHUSIASTIC, heedless (Stronger superego strength) CONSCIENTIOUS (Parmia) ADVENTUROUS, "thick-skinned” (Premsia) TENDER-MINDED, sensitive, clinging (Coasthenia) CIRCUMSPECT EOIVIDUALISM (Guilt proneness) APPREHENSIVE, self-reproaching (Self-sufficiency) SELF-SUFFICIENT, resourceful^ TABLE 17— Continued Low-Score Description Factor Iligh-Score Description (Low self-sentiment integration) UNCONTROLLED (High strength of self-sentiment) CONTROLLED (Low ergic tension) RELAXED, tranquil, torpid Q4 (High ergic tension) TENSE, frustrated, driven aAppendix F displays more complete descriptions on response form. CO U 1 36 Form B for any criterion variable; therefore, the null hypothesis cannot safely be rejected. Form B's stability over the five-week interval was established beyond the 0.99 level of confidence. Questions relating to Validity Question 6: Is there a difference between two sets of paraphrased specimens collected from the same group of subjects five weeks apart? Four variables exhibited significant t values for the differences between group means of paraphrased specimens. Variable #22 (Initial Hooks) was significant (alpha = .05) with the mean greater for the first-session group. Variables #1 (Width of the Top Border), #11 (Total Loopiness), and #14 (Middle Zone Loopiness) were significant (alpha + .01) with means greater for the second-session group. For the remaining 74 variables, the null hypothesis cannot safely be rejected. It can generally be assumed that the time interval did not significantly affect the paraphrased specimens. Table 18 displays appropriate t values and degrees of freedom for variables discussed in Questions 6 through 13, inclusive; only those variables whose t values were significant at the 0.95 level of confidence, or beyond, are reported. Question 7: Is there a difference between two sets of copied specimens collected from the same group five weeks apart? Seventy-five variables showed no significant differences between means of groups who copied specimens five weeks apart. Three variables showed a significant difference: Variable #1 (Width of the 87 TABLE 18 SIGNIFICANT t VALUES AND DEGREES OF FREEDOM RELATING TO VALIDITY OF HANDWRITING VARIABLES Variable t Value 2-Tail Degrees of Probability Freedom #22— Initial Hooks 2.64 0.030 8 # 1— Width of the Top Border -3.86 0.005 8 #11— Total Doopiness -2.37 0.045 8 #14— Middle Zone Loopiness -2.71 0.027 8 # 1— Width of the Top Border 4.39 0.001 15 #61— Round i-dots, j-dots, Periods -2.15 0.049 15 #70— Height of T's & D's 2.15 0.043 15 # 3— Width of the Left Border -2.38 0.021 56 #41— High Final Strokes -2.11 0.039 56 #73A— Frequency of Long Finals -2.11 0.039 56 # 1— Width of the Top Border 3.15 0.003 56 #20— High p-stem 2.14 0.044 22 #19— Lower-looped p 3.33 0.003 22 #72— Intra-word Anomalies 2.90 0.008 22 #54— T-Bar, Cup-shaped -3.19 0.004 22 #11— Total Loopiness -2.63 0.015 22 #14— Middle Zone Loopiness -2.25 0.035 22 #19— Lower-looped p -2.17 0.041 22 #23— Final Hooks -2.19 0.039 22 #49— Circle Letters, Clean -2.91 0.012 12.70a #63— "Cactus Spine" Strokes -2.25 0.035 22 #39— Stroke Endings, Straight 2.17 0.041 22 #73A— Frequency of Long Finals 3.15 0.009 11 # 3— Width of the Left Border 2.33 0.040 11 #79— Width-to-Height Ratio, L.Z. 2.81 0.017 11 # 3 6— Disconnectedness -2.64 0.023 11 #43— Right-tapered Formations -2.38 0.036 11 #71— Height of Lower Zone -2.59 0.025 11 #71— Height of Lower Zone -3.01 0.017 8 #55— T-Bar, Cap-shaped 2.42 0.042 8 #69— Height, Upper Zone letters -3.36 0.010 8 Note.— Variable order follows carmentary in the text. TABLE 18— Continued 88 Variable t Value 2-Tail Prol^ability Degrees of Freedom # 5— Paragraph Indenture -3.48 0.003 16 #10— Span of Inclination -4.66 0.000 16 #52— T-Bar, Weight -4.66 0.000 16 #57— Precise i- & j-dots, T-Bars -3.37 0.004 16 # 7— Word Distance Span -2.07 0.055 16 #25— Angled Initial Strokes -2.08 0.054 16 #41— High Final Strokes -2.60 0.019 16 #73A— Frequency of Long Finals 2.49 0.024 16 aF~test indicated value for separate, rather than pooled variance. Top Border) exhibited a greater mean for the first-session group (p<^ .01); Variable #61 (Found i-dots, j-dots, Periods) showed a greater mean for the second-session group (p .05); and Variable #70 (Height of T's and D's) had a greater mean for the first-session group (p .05). Variable #1 had a greater value for the first session in copied specimens, but it showed a greater value for the second session in paraphrased specimens. There may be more than a difference due to "time, : here; it bears investigation. The second-session group who copied specimens had a higher value for Variable #61; this could be related to the emphasized instructions by their teacher to copy word- for-word, when some had not followed directions exactly the first session. The first-session group made higher d's and t's than when they copied their specimens the second session five weeks later. In general, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected: there are no appreciable effects due to "time" for copied specimens. Question 8: Is there a difference between specimens produced in connection with the personality questionnaire and specimens collected without subsequent administration of the criterion? Apparently, there is no significant difference between specimens produced in connection with a subsequent personality test and specimens produced without a test following. One variable could not be tested, since data were missing: Variable #37 (Pressure) was measurable only if the specimen was written pencil; over half of the control group wrote with pens during the first session. Three of the 90 remaining 77 variables were significant (p~\.05) with means greater for the control group ( not tested afterwards): Variable #3 (Width of the Left Border), Variable #41 (High Final Strokes), and Variable #73A (Frequency of Long Finals). Variable #1 (Width of the Top Border) was significant ( p .01) with the mean greater for the experimental group, possibly due to the fact that Control Group M did not follow instruc tions and wrote their names and "hand used" at the top comer of the specimen sheet. The null hypothesis cannot safely be rejected: there is no significant difference between specimens collected in connection with a subsequent personality test and specimens collected solely. Question 9: Is there a difference between specimens copied frcm a standard text and those paraphrased frcm it? Three variables showed a significant difference between means for groups who copied their specimens and for groups who paraphrased their specimens: Variable #20 (High p-stem) had a higher value for the group who copied (p .05); Variable #19 (Lower-looped p) had a higher value for the group who copied (p-\ .01); and Variable #72 (Intra-word Anomalies) had a higher mean for the group who copied (P<C. -01). Of the remaining 75 variables, three (##17, 42, 58) had no values (on the transformed logarithmic frequency distributions), and four (##27, 36, 46, and 24) had values for one group but not for the other. Thus, 68 variables had no significant differences between group means, and cannot contribute anything towards the "copy" or "paraphrase" mode of producing a specimen. The general null hypothesis cannot be rejected. 91 Question 10; is there a difference between specimens produced by using a pen rather than a pencil? Although different homerooms were involved, and thus this effect was confounded, eight different variables had means significant ly greater for one group, seven of them greater for the group who wrote with pens. Variable #54 (Cup-shaped T-Bars) was significant (p<^.01) with a mean higher for the pen group. Variables significant at the 0.95 level of confidence included: #11 (Total Loopiness), #14 (Middle Zone Loopiness), #19 (Lower-looped p), #23 (Final Hooks), #49 ("Clean" Circle Structures), and #63 ("Cactus-spine" Strokes), all of which had means greater for the pen group, and #39 (Endstrokes, Straight), which had a mean greater for the pencil group. Variable #37 (Pressure) could not be evaluated, since one group did not write with a pencil, which is necessary to measure this variable properly. Nevertheless, the majority of variables had no significant differences, and thus the general null hypothesis cannot be rejected safely: Using a pen rather than a pencil made no significant difference, except as noted. Question 11: Is there a difference between specimens copied from a standard text and specimens paraphrased from the same text, but collected five weeks later from the same subjects? Six variables showed significantly greater means for the same subjects who first copied their specimens, then paraphrased than five weeks later; three variables had greater values for the copy group, and three for the paraphrase group. Only one variable, #73A (Frequency of 92 Long Finals) was significant beyond the .01 level, and its mean for the copy group was greater. Variable #3 (Width of the Left Border) was greater for the copy group, as was Variable #79 (Ratio of Width-to- Height of the Lower Zone Letters). The other three variables, #36 (Disconnectedness), #43 (Tapered formations, Right), and #71 (Height of the Lower Zone Letters) had means greater for the paraphrase group. Variables #24 and #58 had no values to compare. Thus, 70 variables showed no significant differences between group means, and the null hypothesis cannot be safely rejected. Question 12: Is there a difference between specimens paraphrased from a standard text and specimens copied from the same text, but collected five weeks later? What happened when the order was reversed, and one group paraphrased first session and copied second session? One variable (#71— Height of lower Zone Letters) showed a significant difference (p <^,05) for the group which copied second session. Above, in Ques tion 11, this variable also had a greater mean for the second session, even though it happened to be the paraphrase group then. One other variable (#55— Cap-shaped T-Bars) had a mean significant at the .05 level, but greater for the group which paraphrased first. One variable (#69— Height of the Upper Zone Letters) was significant (p*\ .01), greater for the group which copied second session; seven variables had no values, and thus were not compared (##16, 17, 27, 36, 42, 58, and 60). Sixty-eight variables showed no significant differences between group means; the general null hypothesis may not safely be rejected. 93 Question 13: Is there a difference between two sets of specimens collected from the same group five weeks apart, the first set copied with pens, the second set paraphrased with pencil? When the same homeroom group first copied with pens and then paraphrased with pencils five weeks later, the specimens showed signif icant differences for eight different variables, four significant at the 0.99 level of confidence, and four at the 0.95 level of confidence. The former variables were: #5 (Paragraph Indenture), #10 (Span of Inclination of Lines), #52 (Weight of T-Bars), and #57 (Precision i- & j-dots, T-Bars); these had greater means for the second session with paraphrased pencil specimens. Significant at the .05 level were #7 (Wbrd Distance Span), #25 (Angled Initial Strokes), and #41 (High Final Strokes)— all having means greater for the second session with pencil-paraphrased specimens; Variable #73A (Frequency of Long Finals) was also significant at the .05 level, but its mean was greater for the first-session group which copied in pen. Five variables had no measur able values and could not be compared meaningfully: ##17, 24, 27, 37, and 46. Sixty-five variables had no significant difference between group means, so the general null hypothesis cannot safely be rejected. Question 14: For any one sample of subjects, what are the statistical characteristics of the population of handwriting varia bles and personality variables; to what degree do hand writing variables correlate with personality (HSPQ) variables? 94 Beyond the statistical descriptions explored in this question (reported only in the Appendices, due to their extensive length), the implicit null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between hand- - writing variables and personality variables. The results of the sub routine PEARSON COKR made it necessary to reject this null hypothesis; about 100 of the correlations were significant (p<^.10): of these, about 50 were significant at the .05 level, 7 were significant at the .01 level, and one was significant at the .001 level. The values of these intercorrelations ranged from low to moderately-high, both nega tive and positive; none was as high as ± 0.60. This was expected on the basis of previous studies, which have suggested that these low-bo- moderate intercorrelations be pooled by multiple correlation procedures to enhance their predictive value. Since there were over 1200 intercorrelations whose absolute value was greater than 0.20, the matrix will likely prove fruitful for both the FACTOR and CANCORR subroutines later. Data output from CONDESCRIPTIVE and PEARSON CORR are displayed in Appendices H, I, J, and K. Question 15: If significant correlations exist, what individual handwriting variables correlate with individual HSPQ variables; what individual handwriting variables correlate with clusters of personality variables; and what clusters of handwriting variables correlate with individual personality variables? Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed that no single 95 handwriting variable correlated solely (perfectly) with any single HSPQ variable. Handwriting variable #33 (Legibility) had insufficient scatter to rank individuals along a continuum. Some HSPQ factorial "impurities" were evident in correlation coefficients accounting for at least 50% of the variance between two factors: C with D (—.74), C with H (.89), C with 0 (-.78), C with Q4 (-.73), D with H (-.74), D with 0 (.77), D with Q4 (.76), and H with O (-.82). It seemed profitable to run the REGRESSION procedure for all variables except ##34, 35, 40, and 58, which had no raw values whatever. Output from REGRESSION revealed that 67 of the handwriting variables entered into the regression equations to seme degree. Not included were: #14 (Middle Zone Loopiness), #19 (Lower-looped p), #21 (Absence of Leaders), #23 (Final Hooks), #51 (T-Bar Height), #61 (Round i- & j-dots, Periods), #62 ("Jabbed" i- & j-dots, Periods), #63 ("Cactus-spine" Strokes), #67 (Middle Zone Height), and #76 (Ratio of Upper-Zone--Letter Height to Capital-Letter Height). Fourteen variables were included in four, five, or six regression equations: #5 (Paragraph Indenture), #6 (Distance between Words), #8 (Distance between Lines), #9 (Inclination of the Lines), #27 (Initial Loop), #32 (Line Overlap), #36 (Disconnectedness), #38 (Blunt Stroke Endings), #39 (Straight Stroke Endings), #41 (High Final Strokes), #43 (Stroke Formations Tapered to the Right), #55 (Cap-shaped T-Bars), #72 (Intra- -word Anomalies), and #73 (Length of Final Strokes). Table 19 displays each dependent variable and the predictor variables’ contributions to the coefficient of multiple regression, R, the first-order correlation coefficients, and the beta weights. 96 TABLE 19 COEFFICIENTS OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION AND ASSOCIATED VALUES FOR REGRESSION EQUATIONS TO PREDICT HSPQ FACTORS FROM HANDWRITING VARIABLES Dependent Predictor Multiple r2 Variable Variable R ’ r2 Change r Betaa Factor A TopWidOl .3555 .1264 .1264 .3555 .4463 UZLZHt74 .5112 .2613 .1350 .2538 1.2396 SpanWd07 .5860 .3434 .0821 -.1250 -1.1024 RTaper43 .6192 .3835 .0401 -.0182 .0697 Greeks46 .6636 .4403 .0569 .1728 .4452 SpanlnlO .7001 .4901 .0498 .1012 .4047 DistWWOG .7419 .5504 .0603 -.0733 .4747 LZW2Ht79 .7747 .6002 .0497 -.0061 .5245 UnlooA31 .8032 .6451 .0449 -.2095 - .3117 FinBak42 .8223 .6761 .0310 .1150 .4601 RitWid04 .8454 .7147 .0386 .0842 - .3685 LTaper44 .8754 .7664 .0512 .0248 - .4218 Factor B LoopShlS .4558 .2078 .2078 .4558 1.0969 TBarLg53 .6530 .4264 .2187 .3438 .2515 UnlooA31 .7179 .5154 .0889 -.1938 - .3306 KlenOs49 .7636 .5831 .0677 .1378 - .2876 LetDis66 .7967 .6347 .0517 -.3128 -1.0023 SpariWd07 .8395 .7048 .0701 -.1287 .4318 FinLng73 .8701 .7570 .0522 -.0627 .5291 EndBln38 .8910 .7938 .0368 .0083 .3124 UZW2Ht78 .9055 .9199 .0261 .0033 - .3031 HiFins41 .9184 .8435 .0236 -.1992 - .2172 Baloopl6 .9295 .8639 .0204 -.1244 - .2804 TopWidOl .9393 .8822 .0183 .1132 - .1656 Factor C Anomal72 .4737 .2244 .2244 -.4737 - .9909 InLoop27 .6111 .3734 .1490 -.2601 - .4345 TrasAw45 .6713 .4506 .0772 .2274 .3276 SlantL65 .7360 .5417 -.0911 -.3822 - .4032 RTaper43 .7870 .6193 .0776 .0529 .3073 TBarTT56 .8136 .6619 .0426 .0185 .3158 InclnLOD .8348 .6969 .0350 -.0549 - .3028 DUnloo29 .8565 .7336 .0369 -.1170 .2927 TopWidOl .8745 .7647 .0311 .1475 .2553 OiDots60 .8904 .7929 .0282 -.0242 .2295 EndBln38 .9050 .8189 .0261 .0466 - .2492 IniAng25 .9157 .8385 .0196 .0166 .1512 TABLE 19— Continued 97 Dependent Variable Predictor Variable Multiple R 2 r r2 Change r Beta Factor D Anamal72 .4495 .2021 .2021 .4495 .7029 LetDis66 .5782 .3343 .1323 -.2795 - .9553 DistWW06 .6488 .4209 .0866 .3657 .6853 FinLng73 .6999 .4899 .0690 -.1494 .6988 LoopiTll .7464 .5571 .0673 .1180 .5892 RTaper43 .8004 .6406 .0835 -.0648 - .4310 HookIn22 .8337 .6950 .0544 -.2345 .3972 MZ2ULZ75 .8636 .7458 .0508 -.1681 - .3049 TBarTT56 .8881 .7763 .0305 -.0245 - .2599 OiDots60 .9073 .8232 .0469 -.2101 - .2971 RitWid04 .9225 .8509 .0278 - -.0067 - .2350 LapLin32 .9378 .8794 .0285 -.1235 - .1973 Factor E Discon36 .3528 .1245 .1245 .3528 .0788 LapLin32 .5435 .2954 .1709 .3520 .6975 IceDot57 .5963 .3555 .0602 .1939 .2856 StInML26 .6460 .4174 .0618 -.2425 - .6337 SpanWd07 .6993 .4890 .0716 -.0504 .4955 DistWW06 .7445 .5543 .0654 -.2329 - .3905 EndBln38 .8035 .6456 .0913 .1296 .3604 Figur818 .8308 .6903 .0447 -.2215 - .4387 TraceD50 .8571 .7346 .0443 -.1776 - .4901 LoopUZ12 .8742 .7642 .0296 .0095 - .3235 FlInUZ24 .8972 .8049 .0407 -.0029 - .2604 RitWid04 .9127 .8331 .0282 -.2034 - .2760 Factor F Discon36 .4949 .2449 .2449 .4949 .2709 Indent05 .6332 .4010 .1560 -.3792 - .5173 Readit33 .6835 .4672 .0662 -.2982 - .4824 TraceD50 .7245 .5249 .0578 .1200 .3874 DistLL08 .7566 .5724 .0475 -.2161 - .2387 DesLoo28 .7881 .6210 .0486 .0219 - .2817 TopShp47 .8058 .6494 .0284 .2553 .2870 InclnL09 .8292 .6876 .0382 .3014 .3520 Baloopl6 .8542 .7296 .0421 .0929 .3399 BarCap55 .8792 .7730 .0434 .0218 - .2945 Pressr37 . 9010 .8119 .0389 -.1105 - .2747 I<lenOs49 .9147 .8367 .0248 .1931 .1857 98 TABLE 19— Continued Dependent Variable Predictor Variable Multiple R r2 r2 Change r Beta Factor G LftWid03 .4010 .1608 .1608 -.4010 - .4156 RTaper43 .6134 .3763 .2155 .3906 .6719 DistWW06 .7089 .5025 .1262 -.3035 - .3508 Readit33 .7690 .5913 .0888 -.0110 .6141 PStemH20 .8122 .6596 .0683 .0915 .4241 EndBln38 .8873 .7373 .1277 -.3015 - .3993 DistLL08 .9193 .8451 .0579 .0497 - .5852 TieStrl7 .9396 .8828 .0377 .2649 .3025 LTaper44 .9641 .9294 .0467 -.3242 - .5325 UZonHt69 .9941 .9882 .0588 .1611 .4772 HairPn30 .9998 .9996 .0114 -.1295 - .1194 FinLng73 1.0000 1.0000 .0004 .1101 - .0365 Factor H Anomal72 .5531 .3059 .3059 -.5531 - .7048 InLoop27 .6993 .4890 .1830 -.2815 - .1661 IceDot57 .7483 .5600 .0711 .2386 .2977 Indent05 .7795 .6076 .0476 .1605 .2773 BarCap55 .8173 .6679 .0603 .1665 .1364 IniAng25 .8306 .6898 .0219 .1093 .1415 EndStr39 .8453 .7154 .0256 -.2579 - .8226 Final73A .8777 .7703 .0549 -.1476 - .4261 OpenOs48 .9039 .8171 .0467 .1656 .4379 LoopShl5 .9232 .8524 .0353 .1069 .2554 DUnloo29 .9386 .8810 .0287 -.1494 .3455 DesLoo28 .9515 .9054 .0244 -.0304 .2684 Factor I InclnL09 .3563 .1270 .1270 -.3563 - .4270 TBarLf59 .5021 .2521 .1252 -.3369 - .4788 LZonHt71 .6062 .3675 .1154 .2846 .9267 CPW2Ht80 .6847 .4687 .1012 .1060 .0164 BotWid02 .7588 .5758 .1070 -.0509 .8045 HookIn22 .7958 .6334 .0576 -.2085 - .2340 LetDis66 .8309 .6904 .0571 . 3138 .4003 EndStr39 .8565 .7337 .0432 .2013 .3128 Baloopl6 .8924 .7963 .0627 .2634 .4565 MZW2Ht77 .9166 .8401 .0438 -.0490 .3374 Laplin32 .9304 .8657 .0257 .0652 - .2455 BarCup54 .9434 .8899 .0242 .1441 .1863 TABLE 19— Continued 99 Dependent Variable Predictor Variable Multiple R r2 r2 Change r Beta Factor J Anomal72 .5567 .3099 .3099 .5567 .4111 MZ2ULZ75 .6346 .4027 .0928 -.3267 - .6584 Readit33 .7335 .5381 .1354 .0760 .4432 TopShp47 .8250 .6806 .1425 -.2551 - .4373 LTaper44 .8730 .7621 .0815 -.1869 - .3886 TraceD50 .8991 .8085 .0464 .1987 .5097 EndBln38 .9221 .8503 .0419 -.2138 - .3153 DUnloo29 .9442 .8914 .0411 .2259 .1790 Laplin32 .9601 .9217 .0303 -.0764 - .2802 BotWid02 .9776 .9556 .0339 .1761 .4285 EndStr39 .9858 .9718 .0162 .0683 .1950 DistLL08 .9948 .9897 .0178 .0347 .2455 Factor 0 Anomal72 .4789 .2294 .2294 .4789 .5255 InLoop27 .6097 .3718 .1424 .2505 .5317 Indent05 .6739 .4541 .0823 -.2507 - .5055 Discon36 .7143 .5102 .0561 .2241 .3442 KlenOs49 .7515 .5647 .0546 -.0071 - .1372 OpenOs48 .7771 .6038 .0391 -.0802 - .5092 HiFins41 .7931 .6289 .0251 -.0175 .4161 TBarWt52 .8113 .6583 .0293 .0168 .3030 Captal68 .8228 .6770 .0188 -.2173 - .4793 LapLin32 .8380 .7022 .0252 -.1228 - .6228 BarCap55 .8666 .7510 .0488 .0693 .4938 LZonJIt71 .9095 .8272 .0762 -.0341 .4679 Factor Q2 LetWid64 .4501 .2026 .2026 -.4501 - .9598 Indent05 .6292 .3959 .1933 .2913 .5347 InclnL09 .7016 .4923 .0963 -.3815 - .4605 TBarLf59 .7438 .5532 .0609 -.1151 - .2008 LoopLZl3 .7769 .6035 .0503 .3149 .5223 CPW2Ht80 .8258 .6819 .0784 .0797 .5615 OiDots60 .8479 .7190 .0371 .0756 - .4379 Finlng73 .8818 .7775 .0585 -.2565 .5526 EndStr39 .9012 .8121 .0346 -.0964 .1744 TieStrl7 .9158 .8388 .0266 .0128 - .2292 HiFins41 .9289 .8629 .0242 -.2632 - .4044 BarCup54 .9380 .8798 .0169 -.1103 .2522 100 TABLE 19— Continued Dependent Variable Predictor Variable Multiple R r2 r2 Change r Beta Factor Q., DistWW06 .4656 .2168 .2168 -.4656 - .6269 3 LftWid03 .6707 .4498 .2330 .3536 .9138 Indent05 .9104 .8289 .3790 .2989 .7534 Discon36 .9823 .9650 .1361 -.3064 - .3660 TBarLf59 .9997 .9993 .0344 -.2776 - .1865 BarCap55 .9999 .9997 .0004 .0708 - .0232 UZW2Ht78 1.0000“ .9999 .0002 -.1628 .0145 DistLL08 1.0000 1.0000 .0000 .0431 - .0037 Factor Q4 Anomal72 .4041 .1633 .1633 .4041 .4959 StInML26 .5503 .3028 .1395 -.3365 .0764 TieStrl7 .6313 .3986 .0958 -.3539 - .3593 DTHite70 .6707 .4498 .0512 -.2995 - .3998 InLoop27 .7099 .5039 .0541 .1054 .5161 Final73A .7634 .5828 .0789 .3090 .4826 TBarWt52 .8113 .6583 .0754 .0437 .4212 SlantL65 .8407 .7068 .0485 .2743 .2640 Discon36 .8599 .7395 .0327 .1435 .1778 FlInUZ24 .8745 .7647 .0252 .2101 .4093 Greeks46 .8923 .7962 .0316 .0207 .2247 HiFins41 .9010 .8118 .0156 .0741 - .2730 Note.— Constant for each dependent variable’s equations = 0.0. Variables with negative beta values act as suppressor variables, as Mann reported in his study (1961). 101 The data from Table 19 were further simplified by rounding off each decimal value to the nearest hundredth to produce the regression equations that appear below (no constant appears since it had no value in each case: the handwriting variables are identified only by the number in parenthesis; the HSPQ factors are identified only by letter): .88(A) = .45(01) + 1.24 (74) - 1.10(07) + .07(43) + .45(46) + .40(10) + .47(06) + .52(79) - .31(31) + .46(42) - .37(04) - .42(44) .94(B) = 1.10(15) + .25(53) - .33(31) - .29(49) - 1.00(66) + .43(07) + .53(73) + .31(38) - .30(78) - .22(41) - .28(16) - .17(01) .92(C) = - .99(72) - .43(27) + .33(45) - .40(65) + .31(43) + .32(56) - .30(09) + .29(29) + .26(01) + .23(60) - .25(38) + .15(25) .94(D) = .70(72) - .96(66) + .69(06) + .70(73) + .59(11) ~ .43(43) + .40(22) - .30(75) - .26(56) - .30(60) - .24(04) - .20(32) .91(E) = .08(36) + .70(32) + .29(57) - .63(26) + .50(07) - .39(06) + .36(38) - .44(18) - .49(50) - .32(12) - .26(24) - .28(04) .91(F) = .27(36) - .52(05) - .48(33) + .39(50) - .24(08) - .28(28) + .29(47) + .35(09) + .34(16) - .29(55) - .27(37) + .19(49) 1.00(G) = - .42(03) + .67(43) ~ .35(06) + .61(33) + .42(20) - .40(38) - .59(08) + .30(17) - .53(44) + .48(69) - .12(30) - .04(73) .95(H) = -.70(72) - .17(27) + .30(57) + .28(05) + .14(55) + .14(25) -.82(39) - .43(73A)+ .44(48) + .26(15) + .35(29) + .27(28) 102 .94(1) = - .43(09) - .48(59) + .93(71) + .02(80) + .80(02) - .23(22) + .40(66) + .31(39) + .46(16) + .34(77) - .25(32) + .19(54) . 99 (J) = .41(72) - .66(75) + .44(33) - .44(47) - .39(44) + .51(50) - .32(38) + .23(29) - .28(32) + .43(02) + .20(39) + .25(08) .91(0) = .53(72) + .53(27) - .51(05) + .34(36) - - .14(49) - .51(48) + .42(41) + .30(52) - .43(68) - .62(32) + .49(55) + .47(71) •94(Q2) = - .96(64) + .53(05) - .46(09) - .20(59) + .52(13) + .56(80) - .44(60) + .55(73) + .17(39) - .23(17) - .40(41) + .25(54) 1.00(Q3) = - .63(06) + .91(03) + .75(05) - .37(36) - .19(59) - .02(55) + .01(78) . 90 (Q4) = .50(72) + .08(26) - .36(17) - .40(70) + .52(27) + .48(73A) + .42(52) + .26(65) + .18(36) + .41(24) + .22(46) - .27(41) These simplified regressions provided the basis for the cross- -validation study, in progress. Guilford(1965) suggests that multiple R values be corrected for bias before comparing them with the results of cross-validation procedures (p. 401). Analysis of the variables entering the regression equations to predict HSPQ variables revealed that both graphological and Grapho- analytical trait-indications were present, with the exception of Factor Q4 (Low vs. High Ergic Tension) which was comprised solely of trait-indications common to Graphoanalysis or graphology, but not unique to graphology. Half of the twelve predictors of Factor A were unique to graphology (##1, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 79); four of the eight predictors of Factor Q3 were also unique to graphology (##3, 5, 6, and 103 #78); each of the other Factors had from one to three uniquely grapho logical variables, such as border width, distance between words, word- -distance span, span of inclination of the writing lines, paragraph indenture, and various ratios based on letter-size. Naegler's study (1962) did not specify how the Graphoanalyst measured the handwriting specimens for the various factors of person ality; it merely reported how well the scores of the Graphoanalyst and the 16 personality-factor scores correlated on the basis of a ranking scale. Naegler reported coefficients of correlation ranging from .020 to .556? multiple regression equations using variables both from graphology and Graphoanalysis produced coefficients of multiple corre lation ranging from .875 to 1.000 in the present study. Both Naegler (1962) and Mann (1961) used adult subjects, and the appropriate criterion, the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire of Cattell et al., which has twelve factors in common with the criterion (HSPQ) used in this study: Factors A, B, C, E, F, G, H, I, O' 0- 2 ' Q4 • A comparison of the handwriting variables which contributed to multiple R's in Mann (1961) and the present study revealed that only two (#7— Word Distance Span and #36— Disconnected ness) were cannon to the same factors; these factors were three in number: Factor B— General Intelligence, Factor E— Dominance, and Factor — Self-Sentiment Formation. Pascal (1943) isolated ten handwriting variables from his list of thirty-nine which were significantly related to personality varia bles, six had significant first-order correlation coefficients, and four had significant multiple correlation coefficients (p .01). In 104 the present study, 46 handwriting variables correlated significantly (p <^.05) with personality variables, and 67 handwriting variables were entered into multiple regression equations as predictors of HSPQ variables. Hoepfner (1962) attempted multiple correlations of selected graphological variables with each of the ten personality traits from his criterion; his values did not indicate that the elemental grapho logical methods could be seriously considered as useful predictive aids or substitutes for the inventory-measured personality traits used in his study. The results of multiple regression procedures in the present study indicated that both uniquely graphological variables and variables common to both graphological and Graphoanalytical methods were useful predictors for the HSPQ Factors. However, results must be considered tentative until the cross-validation study has been completed. Summary The following statements summarize the findings of this study as outlined above in the Questions and Statistical Treatments (see pages 8--16), except where noted: 1. Stability of individual handwriting specimens over a five-week interval was established; 97.4% of the subjects had 90% of those variables whose T-scores' differences varied less than 20 points between the first and second sessions. 2. Some support for Eysenck's differences in "ease of interpreta tion" for various specimens of handwriting was noted. 105 3. Two rank-orderings of the stability of handwriting variables were produced, one based on extreme T-scores and the second based on mean z scores; communalities were pointed out. 4. The equivalence and stability of the alternate forms of the criterion questionnaire (HSPQ) were established. The t value was significant (p .01) for the equivalence of Factor B on Form A and Form B. The t value was significant (p <^.05) for the stability of Factor J from Session 1 to Session 2. This latter Factor was noted for its test inadequacy by Cattell & Cattell (1969); the former, Factor B, had a high coefficient of equivalence (.9680), so the t value was judged a chance occur rence. 5. Stability of handwriting specimens over a five-week period of time was not impaired by either mode of production, copying or paraphrasing. In no case were more than eight variables frcm the list of 78 variables measured found to have significant (p "\.05) t values. 6. The administration of the criterion questionnaire apparently did not affect the validity of the handwriting specimens which were collected beforehand; only three variables had t values v;hich were significant (p <^.05) . 7. Equivalence of specimens was not affected by the mode of production, copying or paraphrasing: only three variables had significant (p .05) t values. 8. With allowances, the validity of handwriting specimens was not affected when produced by a pen rather than by a pencil; eight 106 variables had t values that were significant (p <^.05). 9. Apparently, only chance-differences appeared in comparisons between groups whose mode of production was reversed from the first to second session. Sixty-eight variables showed no significant (p <^.05) differences between group means. 10. There were some possible homeroom effects influencing the differences between specimens produced by paraphrasing in pencil five weeks after copying specimens in pen; seven of the eight variables which showed significant (p .05) t values had greater means for the group that paraphrased in pencil; only one variable had a greater mean for the first-session group which copied in pen. 11. The CONDESCRIPTIVE output served as the basis for development of norms for handwriting variables in the specimens written by seventh-grade subjects. The data descriptions, based on 157 script specimens from 80 subjects gathered twice over a five- -week interval (77 paired specimens), revealed that 46 of the 81 variables had skewed distributions that needed to be trans formed logarithmically before applying any t tests. 12. The matrix of intercorrelations between all pairs of variables revealed sufficient numbers of significant values to calculate multiple regression equations, and later to do factor analysis and/or canonical correlation with the same or similar data. There were over 1200 intercorrelations whose absolute value was greater than 0.20; about 100 of the intercorrelations between handwriting variables and personality variables (HSPQ) were 107 significant (p<^.10). These intercorrelation coefficients ranged in value from .557 to - .553. 13. Fourteen multiple regression equations were calculated by subroutine REGRESSION (SPSS) for prediction of personality factors from handwriting variables. No single handwriting variable correlated solely with any HSPQ variable. Sixty- -seven of the handwriting variables entered the equations to some degree; a practical maximum of 12 variables was estab lished to predict each dependent (criterion) variable. Four teen variables appeared in four, five, or six regression equations. Variables unique to graphological methods were included in all but one equation (Factor Q^), as well as the variables common to both graphological and Graphoanalytical methods of measurement. 14. The list of operational definitions of handwriting variables allowed for acceptable reliability of measurement for seme variables from specimen to specimen when measured by two different Graphoanalysts. Due to time limitations, only 60 of the 81 original variables were scored and reported. The reliability coefficients ranged from .000 to .999; thirty-two (more than half) exceeded .800; 21 ranged from .400 to .800, while seven values were less than .400; all values were positive. Various skills were evidently used unevenly by the second Graphoanalyst, indicating a need for further controls. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Problem Early identification of individual differences among students permits prompt and specific prescriptions to be made for appropriate learning experiences. Many of the currently-used tests upon which educators rely for such diagnostic information introduce add anxiety for the students so examined, and the results are often filed away without being used for the intended purposes, Handv7riting analysis has been proposed as an effective and convenient method for assessment of personality and its concomitant individual differences. However, research studies have not provided the satisfying degrees of reliability and validity for even adult population samples; no norms exist for the evaluation of the script of school children in the K-12 system of schools. The major alternative hypothesis for this study was that operationally-defined handwriting variables can be measured in the script specimens of school children and used to assess the personality characteristics of the writers, as measured concurrently by Cattell's Jr.-Sr. High School Personality Questionnaire (HSPQ). Further data- -reduction procedures were planned to develop a norming model for various levels throught the K-12 system. 108 109 Experimental controls for reliability and validity as suggested by Campbell and Stanley (1966) were also employed to improve the results. The research design allowed for tentative decisions regarding replication of previous studies. Although data were collected for a follow-up cross-validation study, the findings are not yet available for reporting. Fifteen questions were formulated along with statistical treatments of the data for answering the questions; these are surtmarized in a subsequent section below. Review of Literature A review of the literature for thirty years of research showed that there is some relationship between handwriting and personality, but reliability and validity controls have been unevenly used or missing entirely. More and better research testing of - construct validity is possible and needs to be done. Reliable and valid criteria for personality measurement exist in both objective test batteries and in related questionnaires, with relatively pure factors of personality provided. Multiple regression techniques are effective for pooling the variance of handwriting variables for prediction of personality factors, which have customarily low or moderately low intercorrelations with handwriting variables. Effective use of the data available in handwriting specimens has not been made by graphologists in general and by Graphoanalysts in particular. 110 No acceptable replication studies have been done in the area of personality assessment by handwriting analysis. Methodology Prior to the major investigation, a list of operational definitions was composed from graphological and Graphoanalytical sources in the research literature. A sample population of 87 Subjects was divided into an experimental and a control group, after parental permission was obtained for psychological testing to take place. The 80 subjects who finally took part were all outgoing sixth-graders from a local elementary school in the Los Angeles suburban area, with an average age of twelve years; no attempt was made to control for sex or handed ness, although these characteristics were identified and reported. Subjects were not aware of the purpose of the study. Members of four homerooms were randomly assigned to the experimental group and to the control group by intact classrooms. During the first testing session all subjects wrote a specimen using a standard text in carefully controlled circumstances: subsequently, members of the experimental group were administered the criterion questionnaire (HSPQ). Five weeks later, a second specimen of hand writing was collected in similar circumstances from all subjects, while the experimental group were administered alternate forms of HSPQ. These data were scored, coded for anonymity, and key-punched for electronic computer processing to effect data-reduction and statistical descriptions for evaluation. Intercorrelations and multiple regression equations were produced, along with various t tests. Ill Results The major findings relevant to the questions explicitly proposed and implicitly container! in the general null hypothesis of • no relationship between the personality and the handwriting of school children were as follows: 1. Stability of individual handwriting specimens over a five- -week interval was established; 97.4% of the subjects had 90% of those handwriting variables present in their script to within 10% of the same intensity over the five-week interval. ■ Two rank-orderings for the stability of handwriting variables were produced. 2. The equivalence and stability of the alternate forms and combined forms of the criterion questionnaire were established, corroborating the evidence in the test manual: the mean coefficient of equivalence was .944, with a range of .896 to .978; the mean coefficient of stability was .981, with a range of .920 to 1.000. 3. Stability and equivalence of handwriting specimens over a five-week interval was not affected, by the mode of production, copying or paraphrasing; in no case were more than eight variables from the list of 78 variables measured found to have significant (p <^.05) t values. 4. Validity of handwriting specimens was not affected by the use of a pen rather than a pencil, except for one variable (#37— Pressure); nor was the validity affected by the subsequent administration of the criterion (HSPQ)• 112 5. Substantial descriptions of the data pertaining to 81 variables in the script of twelve-year-old school children were generated to serve in developing norms for various grade-levels within the K-12 system of education. 6. The matrix of intercorrelations between all pairs of variables revealed sufficient numbers of significant values to allow for multiple regression procedures and data-reduc- tion by factor analysis and/or canonical correlation. Over 1200 intercorrelations had absolute values greater than 0.20; about 100 of the intercorrelations between hand writing and personality variables (HSPQ) were significant (p .10); these intercorrelation coefficients ranged from -.553 to +.557. 7. Fourteen multiple regression equations v/ere calculated for prediction of personality factors from handwriting varia bles. No single handwriting variable correlated solely with any personality variable. Sixty-seven of the hand writing variables entered the equations to seme degree; 14 variables appeared in four, five, or six regression equa tions. Coefficients of multiple regression ranged from .875 to 1.000, with a mean of .938. Variables unique to graphological methods were included in all but one equation (Factor Q^), as well as the variables common to )x>th graph ological and Graphoanalytical methods of measurement. 8. The list of operational definitions of handwriting varia bles allowed for acceptable reliability of measurement for 113 some variables from specimen to specimen of measurement by two different Graphoanalysts. Sixty variables were measured for a subsample of 32 subjects, yielding coefficients of equivalence which ranged frcm .000 to .999; more than half (32) exceeded .800, 21 ranged frcm .400 to .800, and seven were less than .400; all values were positive, with a mean of .734. Conclusions Within the framework of the general hypothesis and the questions formulated for this study, the following conclusions were reached: 1. It is possible to provide reliable and valid testing instruments for collecting data within the ordinary classroom in order to evaluate the connection between handwriting and personality of school children, particularly twelve-year-olds. 2. The mode of producing script specimens where handwriting analysis is to be done can be either copying or paraphrasing, as long as the subjects are unaware of the purpose for producing the script. The use of a standard text, however, greatly facilitates the work of analyzing large numbers of specimens, despite occasional "ellipses" and other variations which may occur. 3. While no attempt was made here to interpret, relative to the graphological or Graphoanalytical schools of measurement, the various relationships which developed in the course of multiple re gression procedures, it is possible, especially with further analysis through factoring and canonical correlation, to develop a rationale for 114 the interpretation of such relationships, and to do so for various levels in the development of school-age subjects. 4. The results of this exploratory study must be considered tentative until completion of the cross-validation study; the list"of operational definitions must be improved with illustrations to increase inter-analyst reliability. Nevertheless, the general methodology for establishing a norming model was highly satisfactory. Recommendations This experimenter has developed a stepwise research investiga tion which is anticipated to result in establishment of norms for the assessment of personality through measurement of handwriting variables in the script specimens of school children at various levels of the K-12 system. One important step is in progress: a cross-validation study, for which the data have been collect but not yet evaluated. 1. It is recommended that independent researchers replicate this study for similar sample populations with subsequent cross-valida tion featured as an integral part of the research design. Guilford’s bias correction for multiple R wuld yield more realistic results for this procedure (1965, p. 401). 2. It is recommended that the idiographic examination of the subjects be done, losing T-scores for all variables, as provided in this study; profiles can be constructed for each individual; then the coeffi cient of profile similarity (Du Mas, 1949) could be used to test the similarity of one profile to another to extend the idiographic evidence to nomothetic dimensions. 115 3. It is recommended that Cattell1 s provision for scoring two second-order factors (anxiety and introversion-extraversion) be utilized to corroborate findings by Eysenck and Eysenck (1969) that place more credence in second-order factors than in first-order of personality. 4. It is recommended that the original research design be enlarged with sufficient cells of subjects to provide for analysis of variance procedures; this could act to control interaction effects between variables of sex and handedness, as well as differences due to classroom makeup. REF ER E N C E S 116 REFERENCES _______ . An annotated bibliography of studies in handwriting analysis research. Chicago: International Graphoanalysis Society, Inc., 1970. . Journal of Graphoanalysis, 1962-1972, passim. Chicago: International Graphoanalysis Society, Inc., 1962-1972. _______ . Some tentative guidelines for validation of Graphoanalysis. Chicago: International Graphoanalysis, Inc., 19637 Allport, G. Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1937. Allport, G., & Vernon, P. Studies in expressive movements. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1933. Bachmann, J. Das graphologische Gutachten und seine Bewaehrung. Z. Menschenkunde, 1937, 13 (3), 131-144. Bell, J. The analysis of handwriting. Projective techniques. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1948, 291-3277 Birge, W. An experimental inquiry into the measurable handwriting correlates of five personality traits. Journal of Personality, 1954, 23, 215-223. Bunker, M. Handwriting analysis, (newed.) Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1967. Buros, O. The sixth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park: Gryphon Press, 1965. Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. Cantril, H., Rand, H., & Allport, G. The determination of personal interests by psychological and graphological methods. Character and Personality, 1934, 3, 72-78. Castelnuovo-Tedesco, P. A study of the relationship between hand writing and personality variables. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1948, 37, 167-270. 117 118 Cattell, R. The scientific analysis of personality. Baltimore: Penguin Books, Inc., 1965. Cattell, R., & Cattell, M. Handbook for the Jr.-Sr. High School Personality Questionnaire. Champaign: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, i969. Diamond, V. Personality and handwriting. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1965.) Dissertation Abstracts, 26, 2319. Du Mas, F. The coefficient of profile similarity. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1949, 5, 123-131. Eisenberg, P. Judging expressive movement: I. Judgments of sex and dominance-feeling from handwriting samples of dominant and non- -dominant men and women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1938, 22, 480-486. 4 ‘ Epstein, L., & Hartford, H. Some relationships of beginning strokes in handwriting to the human figure drawing test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1959, 9, 55-62. Eysenck, H. Graphological analysis and psychiatry: an experimental study. British Journal of Psychology, 1945, 35, 70-81. Eysenck, H. Neurotic ism and handwriting. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1948, 43, 94-96. Eysenck, H., & Elysenck, S. Personality structure and measurement. San Diego: Robert R. Knapp, 1969. Ference, L. Dental student selection through handwriting analysis. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Graduate School, University of Southern California, 1970). Fluckiger, F., Tripp, C., & Weinberg, G. A review of experimental research in graphology, 1933-1960. Perceotual and Motor Skills, 1961, 12, 67-90. * " Gibbons, B. A study of the relationships between factors found in Cattell's sixteen personality factor questionnaire and factors found in the Guilford personality inventories. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Graduate School, University of Southern California, 1966.) 119 Guilford, J. Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. (4th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Harvey, 0. Measurement of handwriting considered as a form of expres sive movement. Character and Personality, 1934, 2, 310-321. Hearns, R. Dyslexia and handwriting. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1969, 2 (1), 39-44. '------------ Hoepfner, R. An empirical study of the contents of handwriting. (Unpublished master's thesis, The Graduate School, University of Southern California, 1962.) Kasparek, J. An attempt of the factor analysis of seme quantitative and qualitative signs in handwriting. Ceskoslovenska Psychologie, 4, 1957, 338-352. Kimmel, D., & Wertheimer, M. Personality ratings based on handwriting analysis and clinical judgment: a correlational study. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1966, 30, 177-178. Lewinson, T. The use of handwriting analysis as a psychodiagnostic technique. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1961, 25, 315-329. Lockowandt, 0. Faktorenanalytische Validierung der Handschrift mit besonderer Beruecksichtigung projectiver Methoden. Zeitschrift fur experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 1968, 15, (3), 487-530. Lorr, M., Lepine, L., & Golder, J. A factor analysis of seme hand writing characteristics. Journal of Personality, 1954, 22, 348-353. Mann, W. A continuation of the search for objective graphological hypotheses. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Psychology and Education of the University of Ottawa, 1961.) McNeil, E., & Blum, G. Handwriting and psychosexual dimensions of personality. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1952, 16, 476-484. Meloun, J. The study of values— test and graphology. Character and Personality, 1933, 2, 144-151. Middleton, W. The ability of untrained subjects to judge intelligence and age from handwriting samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1941, 25, 331-340. Naegler, M. A study to determine quantitative agreement between two Graphoanalysts when judging the personality traits of the same subject. Chicago: International Graphoanalysis Society, Inc., 1964. 120 Naegler, R. A validation study of personality assessment through Graphoanalysis. (Unpublished paper, done at Drury College, International Graphoanalysis Society, Inc., 1962.) Nie, N., Bent, D., & Hull, C. Statistical package for the social sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970. Pang, H., & Lepponen, L. Personality traits and handwriting charac teristics. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 26, 1082. Pascal, G. The analysis of handwriting: a test of significance. Character and Personality, 1943, 12, 123-144. Roman-Goldzieher, K. Studies on the variability of handwriting. The development of writing speed and point pressure in school children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1936, 49, 139-160. Saudek, R. The psychology of handwriting. New York: George H. Doran, 1926. Taft, R. Extraversion, neuroticism, and expressive behavior; an application of Wallach's moderator effect to handwriting analysis. Journal of Personality, 1967, 35, 570-584. Taylor, E. An experimental study of the relation of masculinity- -femininity test scores to the sex of persons as judged from samples of their handwriting. (Unpublished master's thesis, Department of Psychology of the University of Southern California, 1950.) Vernon, P. The structure of human abilities. New York: Wiley, 1950. Wallner, T. Graphology as a subject of statistical investigations. Psychologische Rundschau, 1965, 16, 282-298. Wallner, T. The psychology of handwriting: a survey of theories and experimental results. Nordisk Psykologi, 1967, 19, 162-173. Wallner, T. Letter to the editor: A necessary correction of a validation research study in handwriting psychology by D. Kimmel and M. Wertheimer. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1967, 31, 70-71. Weinberg, G., Fluckiger, F., & Tripp, C. The application of a new matching technique. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1962, 26, 221-224. Wertheimer, M. Personality ratings based on handwriting analysis and clinical judgment: a reply to Teut Wallner. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1969, 33, 94-96. 121 Wolfson, R. Graphology. In H. H. Anderson, & G. L. Anderson (ed.). An introduction to projective techniques. New Yorl©& Prentice- -Hall, 1951, 416-456. Zdep, S., & Weaver, H. The Graphoanalytic approach to selecting life insurance salesmen. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 51, 295-299. “ 1 A PPEND ICES 122 APPENDIX A A LOGICAL ORDER FOR MEASUREMENT OF HANDWRITING VARIABLES, OPERATIONALLY DEFINED 123 APPENDIX A A LOGICAL ORDER FOR MEASUREMENT OF HANDWRITING VARIABLES, OPERATIONALLY DEFINED Definitions: Instruments: Middle Zone Letters: lower-case a, c, e, i, m, n, o, r, s, u, v, w, x, and all digits; Upper Zone Letters: lower-case b, d, f, h, k, 1, t; Lower Zone Letters: lcwer-case f, g, j, p, q, y, and z; (NOTE.— f appears twice.) Ascender: stroke higher than average Middle Zone formations; Descender: stroke below the baseline; (Note.— both ascenders and descenders must ccme from the baseline.) Capital: upper-case letters; classify as Upper Zone Letters, unless written with a Descender, as in some G, J, P, Y, Z capitals— classify such exceptions as Lower Zone Letters. Protractor, clear plastic; Straight-edge, marked in millimeters, clear plastic; Pencil with fine point; Desk-sized calculator; Graphoanalysis Slant Gauge, or facsimile of clear plastic. 124 125 Variable No. & Name Average Measurement Time 1. Width of the Top Border. Measure the distance vertically from the top edge of the paper to the uppermost point of the first word of the first line. Repeat for the last word of the first line. Average the measurements. (See Report Sheet for desirable accuracy of measurement values.) Timer (not available) 2. Width of the Bottom Border. Measure the distance vertically frcm the distance vertically from the bottom edge of the paper to the lowest point of the first word in the last line of writing. Repeat for the last word of the last line. Average the results. (NA) 3. Left Border Width. Measure the horizontal distance frcm the left edge of the sheet to the farthest left point of each writing line (except the first); sum the measurements and take their average. Time: ##3 + 4 (2'44") 4. Right Border Width. Perform the same measurements as for the left border on the right side; this time, however, include the first line, but ignore the last line. 5. Paragraph Indenture. If the indenture of the first line exceeds that of the third line, paragraph indenture will be considered to have taken place. If this is not the case, the measurement value assigned will be zero. If there is indenture, measure its depth (width) horizontally, taking the distance between the farthest left point of the first line and the farthest left point of the second line. Average results for more than one indenture. (NA) 6. Distance between Words. Begin with the farthest left point of the 126 first word of the first line and measure to the last point at the right of the first line before any punctuation appears. Measure each word in the above interval and sum. Take the difference between these two sums, and divide it by the number of spaces be tween words in the interval. Repeat this procedure for each line, and average the results. (14') 7. Word Distance Span. Examine the specimen as a vhole for the largest and smallest spaces between consecutive words in which no punctuation mark appears (measuring as many spaces between words as necessary) and take the difference between them. Confine measurements to the Middle Zone. (3'44") 8. Distance between Lines. Measure the vertical distance frcm the baseline of the first word of the first line to the baseline of the first word in the last complete line, at the left side of the script. Repeat for the right side of the script. Average the two and divide by the number of spaces between the lines. *(Left side: measure between the points where the first stroke touches the base line; right side: measure between the points where the last stroke touches the baseline.) The baseline is constructed thus: disregarding descender strokes of lower-zone letters, adjust a straight-edge to the lowest points of other strokes in the line of writing; connect three or more consecutive points that lie in a straight line, using a fine pencil point; in any word, draw the longest lines first, then the shorter ones; through those lowest points not so included, draw lines parallel to adjacent baselines within the same 127 word. One baseline per word is more desirable, even if it slightly cuts through some lower strokes while running tangent to most. (2129") 9. Inclination of the Writing Lines. Draw straight lines through the beginning baseline point and the ending baseline point of each complete line, extending them to the left edge of the sheet. Using a protractor, measure inclination in degrees frcm the horizontal; call them "+" if they incline toward the top of the sheet, and if they decline toward the bottom of the sheet. Average the results. Retain maximum and minimum values to compute #10. ##9 + 10 (6'57") 10. Span of Inclination. Take the angle between the most ascending and the most descending lines. 11. Total Loopiness. Count all the white spaces entirely surrounded by the writing line in all the words, and divide by the total number of letters. (This means to count all looped l's, t's, g's, y's, etc.— all loops appearing in any place.) (3120") 12. Upper Zone Loopiness. Count the number of white spaces entirely surrounded by the writing line in the upper zones or ascenders of the upper-zone letters and divide by the number of upper-zone letters in the specimen. (1'47") 13. Lower Zone loopiness. Count the number of white spaces entirely surrounded by the writing line in the descenders of the lower-zone letters, and divide by the number of lower-zone letters. (59") 14. Middle Zone Loopiness. Take the sum of the upper-zone loops and the lower-zone loops, and subtract this frcm the total loops; 128 divide by the total number of letters (increased by the number of lower-case f's), less the number of upper-zone and lower-zone letters in the specimen. (I113") 15. Loop Shape. First, to clarify-"height'' and "width", imagine that the slant of the writing where each loop occurs has been adjusted to be perpendicular to the baseline (see #65— Slant) . Now examine only every (N/10)th word (e.g., in a specimen of 70 words, count every 7th word), and measure the height of each loop* and divide it by the width. Classify each loop-ratio as follows: ( 1 ) Narrow: greater than 4.5; ( 2 ) Broad: 4.5 to 1.0, inclusive; ( 3 ) Exaggerated: less than 1.0. Average the results. *(Ignore loops or looped hooks within the main loops and circle formations of the Middle Zone; if the word has no loops, take an adjacent word, but resume counting after the (N/10) word.) (2’55") 16. Balance of Loops. Count the lower-case f's made as follows and divide this sum by the total number of lower-case f's in the specimen: (a) the first stroke of tire upper loop must start forward (right) from the baseline, turning to the left at the apex of the loop; (b) following the dcwnstroke through the baseline, the final stroke of the lower loop must move forward (right) and upward and then accross the main stem; (c) this final loop stroke must move forward (right) and upward and then across the main stem; (c) this final loop stroke must be followed by a short terminal stroke moving forward and upward; (d) the upper loop must appear equal in size to the lower loop. (57") 129 17. Tie Strokes. Count each tie stroke: i.e., each upstroke which departs from a downstroke, moves in a backward (left) direction, loops and returns across itself and the downstroke. Divide by the total number of letters. ##17 + IS (1'55") 18. Figure ”8'' Strokes. Count the stroke formations (e.g., f, g, gh) which appear to be a figure "8'1 made with one continuous stroke. Divide by the total number of letters in the specimen. 19. Lower-looped p. Count each lower-case p made with a looped descender. Divide the sum by the total number of lower-case p's. ##19 +20 (1' 3") 20. High p-stem. Count each lower-case p (with or without a leader [initial stroke]) whose stem begins at a point higher than is reached by the following upstroke. Divide the sum by the total number of lower-case p's. 21. Absence of Leaders. Disregarding the letters a, c, d, g, o, q, and all capitals, count each initial stroke-formation whose first down stroke lacks the usual upstroke (leader). Divide this sum by the number of initial strokes, less t-bars, x-bars, hyphens, i-dots, and j-dots. (4'47") 22. Initial Hooks. Count the number of initial strokes (except i-dots, j-dots, or c's without leaders) which form a hook (incomplete loop, more "c"-shaped than "u''-shaped); divide by the total number of initial strokes, less i-dots, j-dots. ##22 + 23 (2'52") 23. Final Hooks. Count the number of final strokes which form a hook (incomplete loop, more "c"-shaped than "u"-shaped); divide by the total number of final strokes, less i-dots, j-dots. 130 24. Initial Upper Zone Strokes, "Fluid11. Count each initial downstroke which begins in the upper zone and blends smoothly (without an angle— more "S"~shaped than "c"-shaped) into the downstroke which reaches the baseline. Divide by the total upper-zone initial strokes which touch the baseline. (49") 25. "Angled" Initial Strokes. Count each short initial stroke ("tick") which begins above the baseline and connects with the following stroke at a sharp angle. Divide by the total initial strokes which touch the baseline (i.e., less t-bars, hyphens, i-dots, j-dots). (1'13") 26. Straight Initial Strokes, Middle/Lower Zones. Count each straight initial upstroke which begins at or below the baseline, appearing to brace rigidly the structure following. Divide by the total number of initial upstrokes (leaders) which begin in the middle or lower zones. (1129") 27. Initial Loop, Left-to-right. Count each initial loop in which the stroke starts left, goes up and right, crossing itself as it goes down to the baseline*. Divide by the number of initial strokes, less t-bars, x-bars, i-dots, j-dots, and hyphens. *(This pattern may be rotated as a whole, relative to the baseline, providing the stroke is made in a counterclockwise direction, and closes the loop before coming down to the baseline. Ignore un-based loops, as in the t-bar of capital T.) (41") 28. Descenders with Small Loop. Count each descender (especially in letters g, j, y) which ends in a small (no larger than the area of middle-zone letters near it) circle or squarish loop and does not 131 return to the baseline. Divide by the total number of descenders, looped or unlooped. (38") 29. Descenders, Unlooped. Count the number of descenders which are not hooked, looped, nor retraced in lower-zone letters, and divide by the number of descender letters in the specimen (see ##13, 22). (39") 30. "Hair-pins". Count upper stems made double without loops or retracing, found especially in letters d, h, k, 1, and t; divide by the total number of upper-zone letters. (45") 31. Ascenders, Unlooped. Disregarding "hair-pins" (#30) , count the number of ascenders which are both unlooped and unretraced in upper-zone letters; divide by the number of upper-zone letters in the specimen. (42") 32. Line Overlap. Count the times when an ascender in any line touches the line above, or when a descender in any line touches the line below. Divide this sum by the total number of lines, less one. (54") 33. Legibility. Evaluate each illegible word as zero, each partly- -legible word as 0.5, every legible word as 1.0; average the results, and report as percent. (35") 34. Line Fillers. When long final strokes appear at the ends of lines of writing, or when dashes or lines are used, to fill space in lines of writing where a sentence ends short of the right border, count the lines so filled and divide by the total number of lines of writing on the page. ( 3") 132 35. Connectors between Words. Count the number of times two words are joined without lifting the pencil or pen; divide by the number of intervals between words (i.e., the number of words minus the number of lines). (22") 36. Disconnectedness. Count the number of times the writer breaks the writing line within words; divide the result by the total discon nections possible, assuming this to be one break between each letter, within the words, or the number of letters less the number of words. (See Report Sheet for formula.) ##21 + 36 (4'47") 37. Pressure (Depth). Rate the specimen as a whole from 1 to 6, by comparison with a depth-exemplar; if doubtful, choose the lower of two ratings. For this study, the exemplar consisted of the same word from the specimen ("length") written six times in a column on the top sheet of six sheets of the same typing paper, using the same type of pencil as those used by the subjects. Ihe six words varied frcm very light pressure (1) to very heavy pressure (6). (45") 38. Stroke Endings, Blunt. Count the number of strokes (except t-bars) whose ends do not taper off to nothing, but rather are blunt. Divide by the total number of stroke endings, less i-dots, j-dots, and t-bars. (See formula on Report Sheet.) (1'54") 39. Stroke Endings, Straight. Count the number of blunt strokes which go straight* down, ending at or below the baseline; divide by the total number of stroke endings, less i-dots and j-dots. *(i.e., uncurved and virtually parallel with adjacent downstrokes) ##39 + 40 (1'15") 133 40. Stroke Endings, Heavy. Count the number of blunt strokes (un looped) which descend below the baseline and which are made with heavy pressure, greater than that for most other strokes in the specimen; divide by the total number of unlooped descenders in the writing. 41. High Final Strokes. Count each up-curved final stroke* which is higher than the preceding middle-zone letters; divide by the number of final strokes in the whole specimen, less i-dots and j-dots. *(It must come frcm the baseline.) ##41 + 42 (54") 42. Final Backstrokes. Count each final stroke which curves upward and left, over at least one preceding letter-formation, especially found in t-crossings; (it must come from the baseline); divide by the total number of finals in the whole specimen, less i-dots and j-dots. Classify all finals (except i-dots and j-dots) into #41 or #42, if they are up-curved. 43. Stroke Formations Tapered to the Right. Count each letter m, w, n, u, v, y in which each successive "hump" or "point" is smaller and lower (relative to the baseline) than those preceding, without losing legibility and identity of the letters involved. Sum these, and divide by the total number of m's, n's, w's, u's, v's, and y's in the specimen. ##43 +44 (21 9") 44. Stroke Formations Tapered to the Left. Count each letter m, n, w, u, v, y in which the final section or "hump" extends higher than the rest of the letter. Tabulate results as in #43 above. 45. Retrace/"Break-away" Strokes. Examine each upstroke of formations like b, h, k, m, n, p, r, t, g, j, y: evaluate it as ( 1 ) if it 134 cones up left of the previous downstroke, enclosing space between; evaluate it as ( 2 ) if it retraces the previous down stroke for at least half the height of the upstroke; if it retraces less than half the height of the upstroke, evaluate it as ( 3 ); if it departs obliquely (toward the right) frcm a downstroke in the same letter and is above the baseline, evaluate it as ( 4 ); if it departs obliquely (toward the right) frcm a downstroke below the baseline (in the same letter), evaluate it as ( 5 ). Average the results. (3110”) 46. Stroke Formation, Top-Shape. Examine the shape of the tops of each letter r, m, n, h, k, s, b, p; rate each according to this classi fication, and average the results: (37") ( 1 ) inverted V-shape with seme retrace near apex? ( 2 ) inverted V-shape with no retrace; ( 3 ) inverted V-shape with rounded point; ( 4 ) rounded arch with no clear apex; ( 5 ) straight line, either parallel to baseline or slanted. 47. Greek-style Formations. Count each letter e or r which resembles a Greek epsilon (lower-case); count each letter d which resembles a Greek delta (lower-case). Divide by the total number of e's, r's, and d's. (4'56") 48. Circle Letters, Open. Count each circle formation (letters a, d, g, o, q) where the circle portion is not completely closed; i.e., the upper left portion does not touch the upper right portion of the structure. Divide by the total number of circle structures. (1'30") 49. Circle Letters, Clean. Disregarding whether it is open or closed, classify each circle formation as follows, and average the results: 135 ( 1 ) no inner loops or hooks; ( 2 ) final stroke (right half of structure) is looped; ( 3 ) initial stroke (left half of structure) is looped; ( 4 ) double hook (hook and loop) in initial stroke; ( 5 ) double loops. (2'28") 50. Retraced T-Stems/D-Stems. Evaluate each t-stem and d-stem which is looped as ( 1 ); evaluate as ( 2 ) each t~stem and d-stem where the downstroke retraces the upstroke; evaluate as ( 3 ) each t-stem and d-stem where the downstroke forms a rigid inverted V with the upstroke. Sum the values, and find the average. (1 *21") 51. T--Bar, Height on T-Stem. Classify each t-bar as follows, and average the results: (59") ( 1 ) t-bar at level of adjacent middle-zone letters or below; ( 2 ) t-bar at two-thirds of the height of t-stem and above adjacent middle-zone letters; ( 3 ) t-bar within the top one-third of t-stem, and above adjacent middle-zone letters; ( 4 ) t-bar higher than t-stem, not touching it. 52. T-Bar, Weight (Pressure). For each t-bar, compare its weight (pressure) to the weight of its t-stem downstroke, and classify as follows, averaging the results: (1'12") ( 1 ) lighter than t-stem, either upstroke or downstroke; ( 2 ) same as t-stem; (doubtful cases assigned here) ( 3 ) heavier than t-stem, either upstroke or downstroke. 53. T-Bar, Length. Evaluate each t-bar as follows, and average the results: (l121") ( 1 ) t-bar covers part or all of one adjacent letter*; ( 2 ) t-bar covers part or all of two or more adjacent letters**; ( 0 ) t-bar covers no adjacent letter. * (In case of doubt, imagine lines parallel to t-stem and tangent to the ends of t-bar; this accounts for the effect of slant.) 136 **{In cases of initial and final letters, imagine the t-bar makes one 360° revolution on its stem or vertical axis, like a helicopter rotor.) 54. T-Bar, Cup-Shaped. Count only curved t--bars that are higher at both ends than in the middle; divide by the total number of t-bars. #54 + 55 (I110") 55. T-Bar, Cap-Shaped. Count only curved t-bars that are lower at both ends than in the middle; divide by the total number of t-bars. 56. T-Bar, Tilted and Tapered. Evaluate as +1 each t-bar whose right end is closer to the baseline and also fades and tapers to nothing at the right end; evaluate as -1 each t~bar whose left end is closer to the baseline and also fades and tapers to nothing at the left end. Sum the values algebraically, and divide by the total number of t-bars. (49") 57. Precision Placement of i-dots, j-dots, t-bars. Count as ( 1 ) each t-bar center-balanced on the t-sten and each i-dot or j-dot which is over the stem; count as ( 2 ) each "off-balance" t-bar which touches the t-stem, but extends to the left or right, and each i-dot or j-dot which is above an adjacent structure rather than its own stem; count as ( 3 ) any uncrossed t-stem or undotted i-stem or j-stem. Average the results. (I124") 58. T-Bar, Right of Stem. Count each t-bar that is made to the right instead of crossing it; divide by the total number of t-bars. (33") 59. T-Bar, i-dot, j-dot Left of Stem. Evaluate each t-bar placed left of the t-stem as ( 2 ); evaluate each i-dot or j-dot placed left of the sten as ( 1 ); add these values and divide by twice the total number of t-bars, i-dots, and j-dots; report as percent. {1’ 7") 60. Circle-shaped i-dots, j-dots, Periods. Count each i-dot, j-dot, or period made in the shape of a circle (or similar shape, as a heart) and divide by the total number of i-dots, j-dots, and periods. (23") 61. Round i-dots, j-dots, Periods. Count the number of i-dots, j-dots, and periods which are truly round dots, not "jabbed" or distorted; divide by the total number of dots and periods. ##61 + 62 (l131") 62. "Jabbed" i--dots, j-dots, Periods. Count the number of i-dots, j-dots, and periods which are neither round dots nor circles, but rather appear as short dashes or slashes. Divide by the total number of dots and periods. 63. "Cactus-spine" Strokes. Count each disconnected stroke which is tapered or needle-pointed, seen usually in t-bars, i-dots, j-dots, x-bars, and hyphens; divide by total number of disconnected stroke-formations. (I119") 64. Width of the Letters. Measure the distance between the topmost points of each letter u and between the lowest points of the first "hump" of each letter m; average the results. (2’17") 65. Slant of the Letters. Construct baselines as necessary, and use a protractor (or Graphoanalysis slant gauge) to measure the angle between it and the slant line. The slant line may be drawn or imagined between the point where each upstrokes leaves the baseline and the point where it stops going up; measure a final stroke only 138 when it is as high as the previous middle-zone formation. Graphoanalysts ordinarily measure 100 consecutive upstrokes (in this study, the last 100 will be used) and classify slant angles as follows (starting at the right end of the baseline, and pro ceeding counterclockwise to the left): To expedite data processing, rate each upstroke frcm 1 to 7 (E+ = 1), depending on which angle-interval it falls into? report both the overall average, and the percent found in each slant 66. Distance between Letters. In a sample of N words, average the values obtained frcm every (N/10)th word*: imagine two perpen diculars to the word1s baseline which are tangent to the right and left extremities of the word, exclusive of disconnected strokes; measure the shortest distance between these two perpendiculars; sum the lengths of ten words, and subtract the product of #64 ( Width of the Letters) times the number of letters involved, giving each letter m or w double value; divide by the number of spaces between letters. *(If the word selected is hyphenated or has less than four letters, use the preceding word of 4 letters or more; resume counting frcm the (N/10)th word, however.) (4'16r) ( 1 ) E+ 0°- 33° ( 2 ) DE 34°- 46° ( 3 ) CD 47°- 54° ( 4 ) BC 55°- 67° ( 5 ) AB 68°- 90° ( 6 ) FA 91°-124° { 7 ) F-125°-180° interval. (13' 4") 139 67. Height of the Middle Zone. In a specimen of N words, average the values obtained from every (N/10)th word (disregard 2- or 3-letter words); measure the length of the slant line for each upstroke between the baseline and a parallel line through the topmost point of the upstroke. Disregard formations which look like capitals; count only upstrokes from middle-zone letters, the last upstroke of the letters b, h, k, p, and the first upstroke of the letters q, 3, q, y, and z. (8' 2") 63. Height of the Capital Letters. Place (or imagine) a short line through the highest point of each capital letter which runs parallel to the baseline of the word as nearly as possible. Place a short, straight line through each capital letter in the direc tion of the slant of the writing at that point (or use the line in the plastic millimeter scale). Measure the distance between the two points thus defined for each capital letter. Take their average. For capital M, measure each hump as a separate letter. (1'14 M) 69. Height of the Upper Zone Letters. Trace a short line (or imagine it) through the highest point of each upper-zone letter, parallel to the baseline. Measure the length of the slant line segment between these parallels, and average the results. Omit t's and d's which are rated separately in #70 below. Also emit letters whose upstrokes begin above the baseline, as those following the letters o, b, w, v, and some s's. (51 6") 70. Height of T's and D's. Relative to the value of height of the middle zone (#67), classify each t and d as follows, and average 140 the results: (4 132”) ( 1 ) less than twice as high as the middle zone; ( 2 ) two to 2k times as high as the middle zone; ( 3 ) greater than 2k times as high as the middle zone. 71. Height of the Lower Zone. Measure the distance frcm the point where the baseline is crossed by the downstroke of each lower-zone letter to the point marking the stroke’s farthest extremity. Average the results. (4’25") 72. Intra-word Anomalies. Disregarding initial letters, count each exaggerated letter k, r, or other letter appearing (within a word) in the form of a capital, printed or cursive, such that its middle-zone height is greater than the adjacent lower-case letters. Divide the sum by the total number of letters, less the number of words. (I1 6") 73. Length of Final Strokes. For any final stroke that descends to the baseline and extends to the right in such a way as to be tangent to the baseline rather than intersect it when extended, measure the distance between its right extremity* and the point where the preceding upstroke crosses the baseline. Tally the frequency of finals that qualify, and retain for computing #73A, below. Average the quantitative values (lengths), and subtract the value for #64 ( Width of the Letters). *(Right extremity is the endpoint of the stroke, unless the stroke curves left, when it is the point where a tangent is perpendicular to the baseline.) ##73 + 73A (5’43") 73A.Frequency of Long Finals. Divide the frequency count frcm #73 by the total number of finals (except disconnected strokes). 141 74- Sum of Upper Zone Height + Lower Zone Height: (69 + 71) 75. Ratio of Middle Zone Height to Upper Zone Height + Lower Zone Height: (67 / 74) 76. Ratio of Upper Zone Letter Height to Capital Letter Height: (69 / 68) 77. Width-to-Height Ratio for Middle Zone Letters: (64 / 67) 78. Width-to-Height Ratio for Upper Zone Letters: (64 / 69) 79. Width-to-Height Ratio for Lower Zone Letters: (64) / (67 + 71) 80. Width-to-Height Ratio for Capitals: (64 / 68) APPENDIX H EXEMPLAR FOR HANDWRITING SPECIMEN Here are the notes one of our reporters scrib bled for a story about a robbery. Find the er rors, rewrite the story correctly in good sen tences, and write a headline for i t . o p ^ i d A ^ e / c r f i s C sC ui A / is X & r v t A v s & u z v ie A / c & a /n £ / A z ^ u r^ X t / rC / ^C cC t £T X t& y i ts s r u ^ A X / syizi^AAvri/u/ t i ^ u ri t & c C s ^AzsiAXri^' /traicAd/ /< ^ s a ^ 2 A X ti^ o /m tu s tu X s ? r iU £ r iig A Z > ^ S a A ^ e s ^d Z i zscA / o £ / c o fy fa /A s u i& z e Z iu a X u r X d A c z m / ^ u r m s / / v /X < r l/u j// X /z X e S i/ ^ a u / ru i s c& A sr n ^U scO A m / c i tfy ' X a / ? a A / o a m / U ' ^ur€Ccz/ X ' c ic v u c ' u / s a lA s c / tu ? c A a c £ / p a n c f ' o £ s / U r& & e A d s a /u f y t& z z X s ^ a X L e ry i Z ' ’ A s y y u £ y ^ £ y & s Z b ' s ^ ru n s e s c s r f y f i/A / /t u t u s ' c £ o u e / j e s e s - c & j fi Z / fy & r u e / ^ c r u m ^ O c m / s fa z Z A s / r r u z m y u p e s l/ e^ueAZuryiAcO X & y u ftA s 142 APPENDIX C REPORT SHEET FOR HANEWRITING SPECIMENS 143 144 PER CENTS (44) MEASURES (17) RATINGS (13) I.D. 11. 34. 1. 15. No. of Letters = 12. 35. 2. 37. No. of Words = 13. 36. 3. 45. No. of Lines = 14. 38. 4. 46. U.Z. Letters = 16. 39. 5. 49. Descenders = 17. 40. 6. 50. Number of f's = 18. 41. 7. 51. Disconnected 19. 42. 8. 52. Strokes: 20. 43. 9.± 53. t-bars = 21. 44. 10. 56. + x-bars = 22. 47. 64. 57. hyphens = 23. 48. 66. 65A i-dots = 24. 54. 67. 65B 1 = j-dots = 25. 55. 68. 2 = No. of Initial or Final Strokes: 26. 58. 69. 3 = hyphens = 27. 59. 71. 4 = "breaks" = 28. 60. 73. 5 = + no. of words = 29. COMPOSITES (7) 6 = 61. 30. 62. 74. 7 = All finals, less i-dots 31. 75. 70. and j-dots = 63. 32. 76. Report all percents with no decimals 72. 33. 77. report all measures to nearest tenth; 73A (distance, to nearest 0.5 nm.) 78. (angles, to nearest 0.5° ) 79. report all ratings to nearest tenth; 80. report all composites by above rules. APPENDIX D PARENTAL PERMISSION FORM 145 146 (printed on official school letterhead) Dear Parents: As a teacher for the past twelve years, I am very much aware of the great number and variety of tests which are administered to our students throughout their academic years. It is paradoxical that one must find a way to reduce the amount of testing by giving yet another test; yet that is what this letter is about. As a candidate for the Ph.D. in educational psychology at U.S.C., I am involved in research related to the whole personality of students. The study I have proposed to do has been accepted by the faculty of the Graduate School, and requires an exploratory study on a smaller number of students in an elementary school. Because I am familiar with classes and conditions at ______ Elementary School, I find it most efficient to draw from this population the subjects needed for the exploratory study. I am requesting your cooperation in this study, first, by permitting your child to be tested on two occasions five weeks apart, and second, by protecting your child from test-anxiety by calling no attention to this research project until after 14 June 1972. These points should reassure you: 1) the results of this test (a personality questionnaire of proved scientific validity and reliability, used in twenty-six different countries) will be kept entirely confidential with no references made either to students' names or to their school; 2) the tests will be short, and incorporated into regular class periods by regular teachers with no disruptions; 3) nothing will be said ahead of time to the students about taking part in the research project (to prevent the "halo" effect); and 4) the test results will be used only for the research exploratory study, and will not affect the students' grades or become a part of their records in any way. Your signature of permission represents your commitment to more knowledge about testing, so that there can be better but fewer tests in the future for your child. APPROVED: Respectfully yours, Thomas D. Kimball Superintendent of Schools I give my consent to have my child take part in this project: School Psychologist (Please return immediately to Principal your child's homeroom teacher.) 147 APPENDIX E INSTRUCTIONS TO TEACHERS FOR SECOND TESTING SESSION TO; SIXTH-GRADE TEACHERS 9 June 1972 FROM; Tcm Kimball RE: SECOND--HALF OF RESEARCH DATA COLLECTION INSTRUCTIONS: (SOME SMALL DIFFERENCES THIS TIME!!) 1. Distribute special testing pencils— if point breaks, replace it. 2. Distribute stapled sheets-sets of plain paper by names: a) fold back the first three sheets, which have been stapled together, top and bottom, because they've been used; b) students should write on all six thicknesses of paper, and only six— do not put anything else under these six sheets; c) students write NAME & DATE on TOP sheet (yes, AGAIN), and whether RIGHT or LECT-HANDED; d) students fold back top sheet and write exercise on next sheet: Ms. MC and Ms. SC— Your students should follow Students should explicit directions on page 12 of spelling book write at normal (i.e., students rewrite the story, correcting speed, with NO errors, etc.) TIME LIMIT. Ms. MX and Ms. SX— Your students should simply Please verify copy the passage on page 12 of spelling book left-handed AS IS (i.e., word-for-word, without correcting writers on it.) top sheet. (Yes, AGAIN!) 3. Collect handwriting exercises and verify left- or right-handed writers on top sheet. THANKS!! 4. Ms. MX and SX ONLY: a) Distribute questionnaires and answer sheets; b) Have students compare Form (A or B) with answer sheet; c) Start students together, after all read directions together: AFTER 10 minutes, at least # 35 (if not, go faster); AFTER 20 minutes, at least # 70; AFTER 30 minutes, at least #105. d) Collect booklets and answer sheets as each finishes. APPENDIX F SCORING FORM FOR HSPQ 148 Please Note: Pages 149-150, "Answer Sheet: The Jr.-Sr. H SPQ and Jr.-Sr. H S P Q Test Profile," copyright 1968 by the Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, not microfilmed at request of author. Available for consultation at the University of Southern California Library. University Microfilms. APPENDIX G INDIVIDUAL T-SCORES FOR SESSIONS 1, 2, AND DIFFERENCES FOR 78 HANDWRITING VARIABLES (N = 80) (NOTE.— Data from computer printout has been rounded off to the nearest unit's place; this accounts for some discrepancies in the differences displayed between scores for the two sessions; scores are displayed case-wise, one case per subject; within each case, the three scores for each variable appear in columns; the variables appear in three-column rows: (1) ## 1 to 16; (2) £#17 to 33, 36; (3) ##37 to 39, 40 to 56; (4) ##57 to 80.) 151 152 Case 1 44 50 40 40 44 58 62 54 48 48 53 53 58 52 53 59 Subject 47 50 46 44 45 48 56 53 45 55 56 54 59 55 53 53 MX 02 -3 0 -6 -4 0 9 6 1 3 -7 -3 -1 -2 -3 0 7 45 48 51 44 45 49 62 48 44 77 46 45 47 53 46 43 52 45 45 67 60 44 45 42 54 48 44 76 46 45 47 60 46 46 52 45 0--19 -9 0 0 7 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 -7 0 -2 0 0 59 52 42 45 48 45 62 59 48 44 42 45 50 53 49 51 45 43 46 46 66 52 43 45 48 39 72 55 48 44 42 65 50 51 49 63 58 53 46 46 -7 0 -2 0 0 6--10 4 0 0 -1--20 0 2 0--11--13--11 0 0 49 50 48 37 64 41 62 43 51 59 43 58 47 51 55 49 62 55 56 75 50 51 53 71 49 45 48 37 64 47 57 41 53 59 46 58 50 53 47 49 29 56 54 66 47 48 49 60 0 4 0 0 0 -6 5 2 -2 1 -3 0 -3 -2 8 -1 33 -1 2 8 3 4 4 11 Case 2 53 65 41 36 43 46 35 41 50 41 45 39 50 47 49 46 Subject 44 58 52 59 43 47 43 45 51 43 45 41 53 46 49 46 MX 04 9 7--11--22 0 -1 -7 -4 -1 -2 0 -3 -3 1 0 0 45 48 50 44 50 45 72110 44 48 46 45 51 74 54 69 52 46 45 48 49 49 57 45 61107 44 43 46 45 47 60 50 62 52 45 0 0 1 -4 -8 0 11 3 0 4 0 0 5 14 4 6 0 2 45 65 42 98 48 40 54 45 48 43 57 41 58 40 47 47108 43 46 46 45 71 42 83 48 44 64 47 48 63 59 42 58 42 39 58115 43 46 56 0 -6 0 14 0 -4- -10 -2 0--20 -2 -1 0 -2 7--11 -7 0 0--10 49 71 48 62 40 50 43 45 47 50 45 46 44 56 47 52 61 50 51 52 43 46 40 48 105 41 48 68 35 45 49 45 41 51 52 50 44 62 40 53 30 55 46 47 47 49 42 46 -56 30 0 -6 6 4 -6 0 6 -1 -7 -4 0 -6 8 -1 32 -5 5 5 -4 -3 -2 3 Case 3 65 31 54 49 43 54 63 55 35 53 42 55 40 40 53 46 Subject 35 40 52 44 43 53 58 52 44 55 44 50 41 43 46 53 MX 10 30 -9 2 5 0 1 6 3 -8 -2 -1 5 -2 -3 7 -6 45 48 44 92 45 93 75 48 59 41 46 45 47 45 46 44 52 45 45 48 43 92 45 89 81 48 63 49 46 45 47103 46 45 51 45 0 0 1 0 0 4 -6 0 -4 -7 0 0 0--58 0 -1 1 0 59 66 42 45 48 45 56 53 48 61 52 42 58 53 61 49 49 43 46 49 59 57 42 64 48 53 54 59 48 46 49 42 61 58 51 51 42 60 55 53 0 9 0--19 0 -9 2 -6 0 15 3 0 -3 -4 10 -2 7--17 -9 -3 49 45 48 51 50 41 65 36 91 66 83 70 50 59 47 75 61 67 51 40 47 45 48 39 49 41 48 51 50 43 54 37 83 64 83 60 47 52 40 78 30 57 60 34 41 44 44 34 0 4 0 0 0 -2 12 -1 8 2 0 10 3 7 9 -3 31 9 -8 6 6 1 4 4 Case 4 47 37 78 41 43 52 56 57 52 60 35 27 53 39 42 46 Subject 45 39 84 38 43 50 50 55 62 53 37 27 49 40 49 46 MX 28 3 -3 -6 3 0 2 6 2--10 7 -1 0 4 -2 -7 0 45 48 50 49 45 73102 48 44 55 46 45 47 74 46 51 51 46 45 48 44 44 45 65 77 48 50 69 46 45 47 45 46 66 51 45 0 0 6 5 0 9 25 0 -6-•14 0 0 0 29 0-■15 0 2 66 56 45 62 48 67 43 59 48 38 75 45 61 42 51 47 45 43 46 49 66 55 54 54 48 63 47 64 48 35 62 45 58 40 42 40 45 43 65 49 0 0 -9 7 0 4 -4 -4 0 3 13 0 3 2 10 7 0 0-•19 0 49 54 48 46 56 42 49 49 54 74 56 62 44 67 40 61 59 65 62 55 34 40 35 43 49 45 48 49 52 44 51 44 52 72 63 71 50 75 40 57 74 50 56 36 37 35 40 30 0 9 0 -4 3 -3 -2 5 2 2 -7 -9 -5 -8 0 4 29 -9 12 0 -2 3 0 3 153 Case 5 42 57 49 60 63 44 39 48 42 45 49 58 48 46 46 46 Subject 52 42 54 60 43 46 41 60 45 56 48 51 50 47 46 46 MX 31 -10 16 -5 1 20 -2 -2--12 -3--12 1 7 -2 -1 0 0 45 48 41 44 47 69 56 48 44 55 73 45 47 45 46 45 52 46 45 58 41 44 45 58 66 48 44 77 46 45 47 45 46 43 52 45 0--10 0 0 3 11--10 0 0--22 27 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 45 49 54 45 48 57 48 59 48 38 47 45 44 53 49 47 48 43 55 53 52 57 51 45 48 65 44 66 48 37 44 45 53 53 47 42 42 43 55 49 -7 -8 3 0 0 -8 4 -6 0 2 3 0 -9 0 2 5 5 0 0 3 49 41 48 43 58 45 46 35 42 51 45 49 44 44 40 42 38 47 58 56 44 46 47 50 49 45 48 58 44 43 47 35 56 54 54 55 47 50 47 47 28 53 52 50 42 42 44 43 0 -4 0--15 14 1 -1 0--15 -3 -8 -6 -3 -6 -8 -6 11 -6 6 5 2 4 3 7 Case 6 62 58 44 51 60 37 41 42 48 39 55 54 47 55 60 46 Subject 41 62 42 65 54 37 33 42 39 75 64 62 47 64 60 46 MX : 34 22 -4 3--15 6 0 7 0 9--35 -9 -7 0 -9 0 0 45 58 41 44 45 58 54 48 44 41 46 45 47 45 46 46 52 50 45 58 41 44 45 56 62 48 44 41 46 45 47 45 46 47 51 46 0 0 0 0 0 2 -9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 4 59 56 43 59 48 68 38 53 48 56 45 64 44 49 39 45 64 53 46 53 52 62 42 62 48 61 36 57 48 53 48 74 44 53 44 40 51 43 46 56 7 -6 2 -2 0 7 1 -4 0 3 -3--10 0 -4 -5 5 14 11 0 -3 49 58 48 45 56 42 50 53 46 36 41 40 58 40 40 46 53 39 40 40 82 67 76 64 49 63 48 50 51 39 50 58 50 39 43 39 58 40 40 52 30 39 47 44 70 67 71 58 0 -4 0 -5 5 2 0 -5 -4 -3 -3 0 0 0 0 -6 23 0 -7 5 11 -1 5 5 Case 7 53 47 65 63 43 45 35 46 33 71 41 53 38 40 57 53 Subject 50 61 36 43 43 44 37 48 37 63 39 51 34 38 49 46 MX 36 3--14 29 21 0 2 -2 -2 -3 8 2 3 4 2 7 6 45 58 41 44 45 69 62 48 44 52 46 45 62 53 46 46 52 46 45 48 41 44 45 67 61 48 44 48 46 45 64 45 46 43 52 46 0 10 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 0 0 -2 7 0 3 0 0 52 57 57 45 48 49 46 57 48 63 58 52 56 46 54 49 42 60 55 46 52 61 56 45 48 48 38 57 48 53 64 50 56 53 51 58 42 64 55 53 0 -4 2 0 0 1 8 0 0 9 -6 3 0 -7 2 -9 0 -5 0 -7 49 45 48 49 52 55 51 50 51 46 43 45 44 43 55 39 41 44 54 54 56 58 59 61 49 76 48 59 43 56 46 50 43 42 46 42 50 40 47 40 31 41 54 43 55 56 59 49 0-30 0--10 9 -1 6 0 8 4 -4 3 -5 3 8 -1 10 3 0 11 1 2 0 12 Case 8 39 70 39 55 53 39 33 41 54 39 60 61 52 59 53 46 Subject 54 64 39 57 50 32 32 40 55 45 56 57 50 55 53 46 MX 45 -15 6 -1 -2 3 7 2 1 -1 -5 4 4 1 4 0 0 45 58 46 53 45 67 48 48 53 48 46 45 47 45 46 50 51 46 45 48 43 49 45 67 46 48 49 46 46 45 47 45 46 54 52 46 0 10 3 4 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 -5 -1 0 52 45 42 45 48 45 43 62 48 56 39 59 44 51 63 61 42 43 55 49 45 36 42 45 48 50 42 62 48 46 40 51 53 58 61 65 53 43 74 56 7 9 0 0 0 -5 1 0 0 11 -1 8 -9 -7 2 -5-■11 0-•19 -7 49 45 48 45 56 47 42 56 43 46 42 42 44 39 40 47 55 41 61 52 46 50 51 51 49 50 48 40 61 60 44 41 45 54 52 50 44 47 40 63 29 48 61 46 40 44 43 42 0 -4 0 5 -5--13 -2 15 -2 -9-•10 -7 0 -7 0-■16 26 -8 0 6 6 6 8 9 154 Case 9 50 46 38 35 63 58 71 56 39 53 54 49 46 56 49 46 Subject 45 55 39 37 44 51 63 45 50 51 57 46 46 60 53 46 MX 47 4 -9 -1 -2 20 7 7 11--11 2 -3 2 0 -4 -4 0 45 48 57 44 45 45 45 48 44 71 46 45 51 89 46 49 52 45 45 58 54 44 45 73 49 48 52 62 46 53 47 67 46 71 50 46 0--10 3 0 0--29 -4 0 -7 9 0 -8 5 22 0--21 2 -2 52 57 52 45 48 63 40 51 48 49 43 69 58 49 49 58 53 43 46 46 59 63 49 45 48 60 44 49 48 46 47 71 56 49 47 58 51 49 46 49 -7 -6 3 0 0 4 -4 2 0 3 -4 -3 3 0 2 0 2 -6 0 -3 49 41136 37 40 40 50 50 76 51 40 57 66 50 63 65 48 55 46 84 48 43 48 65 49 41123 37 37 40 55 50 57 54 46 56 52 51 63 65 30 54 50 64 49 48 50 58 0 0 13 0 3 0 -5 -1 19 -2 -6 1 14 -1 0 1 18 0 -4 19 -2 -4 -2 6 Case 10 47 65 49 48 44 42 37 47 39 60 53 64 54 49 49 46 Subject 52 58 50 52 43 41 37 52 32 61 50 62 47 46 49 46 MX 56 „4 7 -1 -4 1 2 0 -5 8 -2 3 2 7 3 0 0 45 58 49 44 47 38 46 48 44 54 46 45 47 45 46 72 52 45 45 58 49 49 45 45 41 48 44 53 46 45 47 45 46 45 52 45 0 0 0 -4 3 -7 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 52 47 43 45 48 52 57 49 48 47 49 51 38 55 44 61 45 64 37 46 52 44 42 45 48 50 53 45 48 49 54 47 41 55 47 54 48 60 9 49 0 3 2 0 0 2 4 4 0 -2 -5 4 -3 0 -2 7 -2 5 28 -3 49 41 55 40 61 68 41 54 42 44 46 47 55 54 47 43 58 50 43 51 46 43 41 45 49 41 48 42 59 68 36 50 48 46 48 48 50 53 47 49 30 50 44 50 40 38 37 39 0 0 7 -2 2 0 5 5 -6 -1 -1 -1 5 1 0 -6 29 0 -1 1 6 5 4 6 Case 11 64 53 52 40 43 55 45 45 51 39 48 52 58 45 60 46 Subject 55 50 60 39 43 54 60 48 52 45 56 52 68 54 57 46 MX 63 9 3 -8 1 0 2--15 -4 -2 -5 -7 0 0--10 4 0 45 48 71 84 45 42 43 48 90 71 46 50 47 45 46 49 52 46 45 48 71 62 45 45 44 48 59 66 46 50 47 45 46 50 52 46 0 0 0 22 0 -2 -1 0 31 4 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 52 79 52 45 48 46 50 53 48 50 43 45 56 35 61 40 42 43 46 39 52 69 51 45 48 47 46 53 51 60 43 55 56 42 49 49 42 60 46 46 0 11 2 0 0 -1 4 0 -3 -9 0--10 0 -7 12 -9 0--17 0 -7 49 41 48 37 64 39 53 52 48 48 43 50 44 48 40 46 31 50 47 62 54 51 54 61 49 63 48 42 59 43 50 48 53 51 45 55 44 50 47 48 30 53 49 66 48 45 48 56 0-22 0 -5 5 -3 2 5 -5 -4 -1 -4 0 -2 -8 -2 1 -4 -1 -3 6 6 6 5 Case 12 48 44 43 46 67 56 54.56 27 80 44 35 55 48 60 70 Subject 45 52 43 40 69 52 52 54 34 56 44 38 53 46 60 46 MX 72 3 -9 0 5 -2 4 2 2 -7 24 0 -3 2 2 0 24 65 39 44 44 83 49 53 57 44 47 46 45 47 45 88 43 52 48 45 39 49 44 73 49 54 48 50 46 46 45 47 45 69 43 52 46 20 0 -5 0 10 0 -1 9 -6 1 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 2 45 60 45 45 48 61 41 47 48 53 54 42 58 35 51 40 44 60 46 43 52 76 43 64 48 60 42 45 48 53 54 42 61 35 54 42 48 43 46 43 -7-•15 2-•19 0 1 -1 2 0 0 -1 0 -3 0 -2 -2 -3 17 0 0 49 58 48 50 51 41 51 45 51 47 45 45 44 45 47 45 60 44 56 50 53 58 56 57 49 45 48 58 44 39 55 46 53 48 49 44 44 43 47 50 29 44 60 43 56 62 61 54 0 13 0 -8 8 2 -3 -1 -2 -1 -5 0 0 2 0 -5 31 1 -4 7 -3 -4 -5 4 155 Case 13 50 39 39 44 46 9 48 57 48 53 56 45 50 60 49 46 Subject 37 40 38 47 47 36 56 62 48 43 59 50 52 61 42 46 MX ' 73 12 -1 1 -3 0--27 -7 -5 0 10 -3 -5 -2 -1 7 0 65 48 41 44 73 49 46 48 44 60 46 45 51 45 46 46 51 48 45 48 43 44 47 60 45 48 44 69 59 45 51 53 46 43 51 45 20 0 -3 0 25--11 1 0 0 -9--14 0 0 -7 0 2 0 4 66 34 42 47 48 36 77 45 62 43 47 66 56 58 35 67 42 43 55 56 59 34 42 52 48 40 77 49 79 46 47 68 56 55 39 74 45 43 65 59 7 0 0 -5 0 -4 0 -4--17 -3 0 -1 0 2 -5 -7 -3 0 -9 -3 49 41 48 48 54 62 57 36 59 75 60 76 44 59 40 86 56 70 56 64 38 38 41 46 49 45 48 40 61 60 58 35 62 79 85 80 44 64 47 65 30 75 55 45 37 37 39 36 0 -4 0 8 -7 2 -1 1 -2 -4--25 -4 0 -5 -8 21 26 -4 1 19 1 1 2 10 Case 14 55 47 63 64 49 56 52 47 63 43 41 37 57 42 42 46 Subject 57 44 64 55 43 59 58 51 49 53 43 52 41 41 42 46 MX ' 75 -2 3 -1 9 6 -2 -6 -4 14--10 -2--15 15 1 0 0 45 48 71 53 55 65 41 48 44 41 46 45 47 45 46 50 51 45 45 39 71 66 55 62 44 48 49 49 46 45 47 45 46 52 51 45 0 10 0--13 0 2 -2 0 -4 -7 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 0 59 54 42 47 48 58 51 43 48 49 73 45 50 53 61 56 50 58 46 49 66 47 42 47 48 60 54 45 48 47 74 47 41 51 56 67 58 53 55 53 -7 6 0 0 0 -2 -3 -2 0 2 -1 -3 9 2 5--11 -8 5 -9 -3 49 50 48 53 49 44 47 50 43 50 40 48 47 51 55 53 62 49 52 67 46 48 45 60 49 58 48 57 45 53 49 50 44 52 46 52 52 55 71 56 28 53 49 58 46 47 44 52 0 -9 0 -4 4 -9 -2 1 -1 -2 --6 -4 -5 -4--16 -3 33 -4 4 9 -1 1 1 8 Case 15 45 52 48 47 47 59 56 52 52 56 48 38 53 51 46 53 Subject 47 53 34 43 56 55 60 50 54 41 49 37 50 53 53 46 MX 78 -1 -1 14 4 -9 4 -4 2 -2 3 -1 1 3 -2 -7 6 45 58 41 54 45 42 49 48 49 41 46 53 47 45 46 45 52 48 65 39 43 62 45 54 54 48 56 41 46 45 47 53 46 49 52 46 -20 19 -3 -8 0--11 -5 0 -7 0 0 8 0 -7 0 -4 0 2 59 43 48 57 48 46 60 51 72 41 43 51 53 51 42 51 45 49 46 46 52 44 43 69 48 47 62 51107 40 44 52 53 44 42 54 42 43 55 46 7 0 5--12 0 -1 -2 0--35 2 -1 -1 0 7 0 -2 3 6 -9 0 49 45 48 57 45 57 48 46 52 57 51 54 44 49 47 62 58 52 58 52 41 44 44 46 49 45 48 46 55 55 51 47 63 60 52 57 44 54 47 72 30 56 56 55 41 44 43 47 0 0 0 10--10 2 -3 -1-■11 -4 -1 -4 0 -6 0--10 28 -5 2 -3 0 0 1 -2 Case 16 56 59 44 67 43 49 43 51 47 45 55 49 65 54 53 46 Subject 45 54 48 71 45 42 41 52 48 43 52 49 68 50 49 46 MX 80 10 -4 -3 -4 -2 7 2 -1 -1 2 3 1 -3 4 4 0 45 48 71 44 45 38 48 48 44 41 59 45 47 45 46 45 52 45 45 48 71 44 47 38 44 48 44 41 59 45 47 45 46 46 52 45 0 0 0 0 -3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 0 59 33 42 49 48 36 43 41 48 50 39 42 61 58 44 49 61 49 74 46 52 34 42 59 48 44 42 41 48 49 39 42 61 58 39 51 42 43 55 46 7 -1 0--10 0 -8 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 -2 19 6 19 0 49 41 48 63 40 52 44 45 52 52 52 57 44 56 55 54 63 57 45 54 42 40 40 42 49 45 48 51 50 45 44 43 52 47 57 57 69 58 55 48 30 58 37 49 47 39 41 39 0 -4 - 11--11 7 0 2 0 5 -4 -1-■25 -2 0 6 33 -1 8 5 -5 1 -1 3 156 Case 17 47 46 51 63 43 49 45 59 36 46 69 50 68 71 53 53 Subject 44 53 45 58 43 47 47 55 56 45 69 52 66 72 57 46 MX 87 2 -7 6 5 0 2 -2 5--20 2 0 -2 2 0 -4 6 65 48 71 44 45 42 41 48 44 51 46 55 51 53 46 49 49 46 65 39 71 44 45 42 41 48 52 51 46 55 47 53 46 52 51 45 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 -7 0 0 0 5 0 0 -4 -2 2 59 32 42 45 48 72 46 64 48 46 40 68 50 38 37 65 48 49 33 59 52 32 42 45 48 74 42 66 48 41 44 70 50 40 30 63 59 49 83 63 7 0 0 0 0 -2 4 -2 0 5 -4 -3 0 -2 7 2--11 0 0 -3 49 45 48 37 64 80 48 55 47 55 58 59 44 51 71 46 46 56 50 50 43 41 44 41 49 67 48 37 64 80 53 57 48 60 64 61 44 52 71 45 30 58 54 45 43 42 45 40 0-22 0 0 0 0 -5 -2 -1 -5 -6 -2 0 -1 0 1 17 -1 -4 5 0 -2 -1 1 Case 18 52 47 56 41 43 53 37 42 51 46 67 57 51 70 53 46 Subject 50 42 57 44 43 53 43 54 57 41 60 54 49 71 53 46 MX 88 2 5 -2 -3 0 -1 -6--12 -6 5 0 3 2 -1 0 0 45 48 55 44 75 45 41 48 44 41 73 67 47 45 46 57 52 50 45 58 49 44 57 45 41 48 44 41 59 61 47 45 46 46 52 46 0--10 6 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 14 6 0 0 0 11 0 4 45 58 82 45 48 44 65 57 48 50 41 66 53 44 49 40 59 49 55 53 52 63 84 45 48 42 64 59 48 55 39 70 53 46 51 40 45 49 46 46 -7 -5 -2 0 0 2 1 -2 0 -5 2 -4 0 -2 -2 0 14 0 9 7 49 50 48 46 55 55 53 65 51 46 45 42 44 54 47 40 31 47 50 46 56 63 51 57 49 50 48 54 48 44 60 61 54 51 49 49 44 58 55 41 30 53 47 50 56 59 52 57 0 0 0 -8 8 10 -7 4 -3 -5 -4 -7 0 -5 -8 -1 2 -6 2 -4 0 4 -1 0 Case 19 48 34 47 52 69 50 62 53 65 50 42 43 53 42 49 53 Subject 47 41 55 38 43 48 50 52 50 50 40 37 50 41 46 46 MX 91 1 -7 -8 13 26 2 11 1 14 0 2 6 4 0 4 6 45 48 47 54 45 58 51 48 44 59 46 50 47 45 46 45 52 45 45 48 46 57 45 40 46 48 44 69 46 45 47 53 46 43 52 46 0 0 1 -3 0 18 5 0 0--10 0 5 0 -7 0 2 0 -2 52 40 43 66 48 44 67 47 48 46 50 42 58 46 54 40 52 43 65 49 52 41 49 52 48 47 60 47 48 41 43 38 61 46 54 42 45 43 55 56 0 -1 -6 14 0 -3 7 0 0 5 8 4 -3 0 0 -2 7 0 9 -7 49 45 48 40 61 44 69 34 72 84 70 77 44 66 40 79 51 74 61 53 39 43 43 46 49 45 48 42 59 43 62 34 73 68 66 71 44 63 40 65 30 69 51 53 44 42 44 45 0 0 0 -2 2 2 7 0 -1 16 4 6 0 3 0 .14 21 5 10 0 -4 1 -1 1 Case 20 80 41 47 50 43 46 48 55 37 50 56 67 55 52 53 53 Subject 53 46 56 53 43 43 45 58 25 60 57 62 52 55 49 46 MX 99 27 -6 -9 -3 -1 4 4 -4 12-■10 0 5 3 -3 4 7 45 58 47 44 70 49 61 48 69 41 46 45 51 45 62 47 52 50 65 58 41 44 73 45 66 48 44 41 46 45 47 45 62 46 52 46 ■20 0 7 0 -3 4 -5 0 25 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 4 45 51 52 47 48 47 40 43 48 61 42 61 32 46 56 61 51 49 46 53 45 41 45 74 48 37 60 49 48 52 40 59 32 46 54 51 45 43 46 43 0 9 8-■27 0 10-•20 -6 0 9 3 3 0 0 2 9 5 6 0 10 49 63 48 57 45 44 51 70 53 44 46 48 58 43 47 49 47 46 47 52 58 53 60 55 49 45 48 57 45 48 46 53 49 54 61 54 50 54 47 47 26 54 50 42 41 41 41 38 0 17 0 0 0 -4 6 17 4 -9-■15 -7 8-■11 0 1 21 -9 -2 9 16 12 19 17 157 Case 21 56 54 66 46 43 45 43 46 56 63 64 57 56 65 53 53 Subject 53 54 67 55 43 43 45 47 57 61 62 56 59 62 49 46 SX 01 2 0 -1 -8 0 2 -2 -1 -1 2 2 1 -4 3 4 6 65 48 71 53 45 40 41 48 61 69 46 45 62 45 46 98 51 46 65 48 71 71 45 42 43 48 56 58 46 45 62 45 46 64 52 46 0 0 0--18 0 -2 -1 0 4 11 0 0 0 0 0 35 -1 0 45 40 43 45 48 51 51 51 48 50 43 57 47 55 54 58 51 71 55 49 45 47 43 45 48 50 48 47 48 52 42 53 50 55 54 56 67 53 46 49 0 -6 0 0 0 1 4 4 0 -2 1 4 -3 0 0 2--16 17 9 0 49 41 48 46 55 67 43 51 54 49 46 54 58 54 40 49 48 55 44 62 44 40 41 47 49 58 48 48 53 48 42 50 48 46 49 54 63 53 47 45 30 54 39 56 46 39 42 43 0-17 0 -2 2 19 1 1 6 4 -3 0 -5 1 -8 4 18 1 5 6 -3 1 -1 4 Case 22 52 50 58 39 43 45 50 54 48 51 60 56 55 60 53 46 Subject 62 67 45 34 43 41 39 39 48 41 59 56 52 59 49 46 SX 06 -10--18 14 5 0 4 11 14 0 10 1 0 3 1 4 0 45 48 52 57 47 42 41 48 87 43 46 61 47 45 46 55 51 46 45 58 52 57 47 56 43 48 71 44 46 53 47 45 46105 51 46 0--10 0 0 0--13 -1 0 16 -1 0 8 0 0 0-■50 0 0 59 44 60 45 48 60 39 43 48 52 49 53 50 53 56 61 61 60 55 49 52 41 56 45 48 51 45 41 48 52 55 53 50 53 51 51 58 49 65 56 7 3 5 0 0 9 -6 2 0 0 -6 0 0 0 5 9 3 11 -9 -7 49 41 48 51 50 52 54 63 49 51 49 53 50 50 55 59 52 52 50 55 51 49 51 53 49 58 48 50 51 51 39 61 41 43 42 43 47 40 47 46 30 41 52 53 46 45 48 47 0-17 0 1 -1 1 15 2 8 9 7 10 3 10 8 13 22 11 -2 2 5 4 3 5 Case 23 68 61 50 55 43 48 39 36 47 43 52 46 55 53 57 46 Subject 47 58 51 67 43 50 37 41 55 48 48 48 55 48 57 46 SX 09 21 3 -1--12 0 -2 2 -4 -8 -5 4 -2 0 6 0 0 45 48 46 44 45 40 41 48 44 55 46 50 47 45 46 60 52 46 45 48 49 44 45 45 46 48 66 43 46 50 47 53 46 51 52 48 0 0 -3 0 0 -4 -5 0--22 13 0 0 0 -7 0 8 0 -2 52 49 45 45 48 36 60 68 48 56 46 50 50 53 59 58 42 64 46 49 66 52 46 45 48 35 67 57 48 49 52 50 50 53 66 61 48 60 46 49 -14 -3 -2 0 0 1 -7 10 0 8 -6 0 0 0 -7 -2 -5 5 0 0 49 71 48 37 64 47 47 52 40 40 51 40 47 45 47 43 54 41 46 36 62 61 57 45 49 58 48 37 64 46 53 54 42 43 49 42 47 45 47 44 29 43 50 40 62 64 60 52 0 13 0 0 0 1 -6 -2 -2 -4 1 -3 0 -1 0 -1 25 -2 -4 -5 1 -3 -3 -7 Case 24 55 52 61 51 43 65 47 49 43 43 46 62 28 44 49 46 Subject 51 50 48 53 57 60 56 57 49 41 56 67 43 52 49 53 SX 14 3 2 13 -3--14 5 -9 -8 -7 2 -9 -5--14 -8 0 -6 45 29 43 44 52 56 45 48 44 45 46 45119 45 46 43 51 56 45 48 41 44 55 49 43 48 44 41 46 45 74 45 46 43 52 48 0-■19 3 0 -3 7 2 0 0 4 0 0 46 0 0 0 -1 7 45 64 71 45 48 54 43 53 48 60 58 51 44 42 54 38 53 43 46 46 45 60 59 45 48 47 36 59 48 49 52 61 35 44 56 38 45 55 46 46 0 3 12 0 0 7 7 -6 0 11 6--10 9 -2 -2 0 8--12 0 0 49 45 48 45 56 47 46 64 51 38 42 41 61 43 55 41 46 41 43 49 65 58 60 56 49 54 48 65 38 50 48 66 45 40 45 41 47 45 55 39 30 43 44 45 64 59 58 53 0 -9 0--19 18 -3 -2 -2 6 -2 -3 -1 14 -3 0 2 17 -2 -1 4 2 -2 2 3 158 Case 25 62 59 45 47 50 65 58 46 50 48 49 58 53 46 53 46 Subject 65 55 56 61 43 61 52 40 50 43 39 50 49 37 49 46 SX 20 -4 4--11--15 8 4 6 6 0 5 9 8 4 9 4 0 45 58 53 44 45 60 45 48 44 47 87 45 47 45 46 43 52 48 45 48 46 44 45 65 49 48 44 41 59 50 47 45 46 47 52 46 0 10 7 0 0 -4 -4 0 0 6 27 -5 0 0 0 -4 0 2 52 42 42 45 48 61 39 47 48 50 42 60 41 58 25 67 48 43 46 43 66 38 42 45 48 59 38 49 48 50 47 51 50 69 49 63 53 43 46 46 -14 3 0 0 0 2 1 -2 0 0 -4 9 -9--11--24 5 -5 0 0 -3 49 45 48 39 62 49 39 56 44 37 37 38 55 42 40 46 60 39 44 54 57 53 52 56 49 41 48 42 59 42 44 56 40 37 39 37 50 42 47 45 29 38 47 47 65 65 60 60 0 4 0 -4 3 7 -6 0 4 -1 -2 1 5 0 -8 1 32 1 -4 7 -8--12 -8 -4 Case 26 51 37 52 38 43 53 56 60 36 56 50 41 47 54 57 46 Subject 48 45 42 59 43 50 52 64 11 83 41 34 44 45 49 46 SX 26 3 -8 9 ' -20 0 4 4 -4 25'-27 9 6 3 9 7 0 45 39 41 44 63 47 43 48 49 48 46 61 47 45 58 43 52 48 45 39 43 44 52 42 45 48 49 48 46 53 47 53 46 43 52 45 0 0 -3 0 10 4 -2 0 0 0 0 8 0 -7 11 0 0 4 52 57 48 47 48 44 50 55 48 55 50 53 56 44 51 47 57 43 46 46 66 57 54 47 48 47 45 45 48 52 50 45 56 46 51 56 67 43 46 49 -14 0 -6 0 0 -4 5 10 0 3 1 9 0 -2 0 -9--11 0 0 -3 49 54 64 55 41 42 53 60 53 46 45 45 44 42 47 52 52 43 55 50 57 59 61 58 49 41 48 48 53 46 46 59 48 46 43 46 50 41 40 60 28 44 55 55 49 50 53 53 0 13 16 6--11 -4 7 1 5 -1 1 -1 -5 1 8 -8 24 -1 0 -5 8 9 8 5 Case 27 73 55 54 51 43 43 43 40 57 39 51 58 49 48 53 53 Subject 51 54 50 49 43 44 41 49 50 45 67 62 51 68 49 53 SX 33 22 2 4 2 0 -2 2 -9 7 -5--17 -3 -2--20 4 0 45 48 49 44 65 40 44 48 44 41 46 53 51 45 58 45 52 46 45 48 43 49 65 56 44 48 49 43 46 49 47 45 62 46 51 46 0 0 5 -4 0--15 0 0 -4 -1 0 5 5 0 -4 -1 1 0 45 57 56 45 48 50 43 51 48 60 52 46 44 58 47 40 45 49 46 53 45 49 57 45 48 55 42 51 48 46 45 62 38 55 37 47 42 64 46 49 0 7 -2 0 0 -5 1 0 0 14 6--17 6 2 10 -7 3--16 0 3 49 54 48 45 44 48 56 50 46 46 43 45 44 44 40 32 38 44 54 53 60 63 63 65 49 50 48 60 42 49 51 53 48 49 46 47 44 48 40 36 30 47 54 51 51 54 52 55 0 4 0-■15 3 -1 5 -4 -2 -3 -3 -3 0 -3 0 -5 8 -3 0 2 9 9 10 10 Case 28 72 58 32 53 58 45 37 40 46 46 42 34 44 46 46 46 Subject 58 65 40 64 43 49 47 33 52 48 43 39 39 46 53 46 SX 38 14 -7 -8-■11 16 -4 -9 7 -6 -2 0 -4 5 0 -7 0 45 39 43 44 88 60 41 48 52 66 46 64 47 45 46 50 52 45 45 39 41 44 90 65 43 48 44 59 46 65 47 45 46 51 52 45 0 0 3 0 -3 -4 -1 0 7 7 0 -2 0 0 0 -2 0 0 52 59 63 45 48 49 54 45 48 49 45 37 61 46 54 40 44 43 46 56 52 53 70 45 48 42 45 49 48 61 48 37 58 53 47 38 45 43 46 56 0 6 -6 0 0 7 9 -4 0-■12 -3 0 3 -7 7 2 -1 0 0 0 49 41 48 68 35 40 57 36 42 54 43 46 44 48 40 42 39 47 63 55 51 61 54 65 49 45 48 65 37 46 57 43 42 49 40 43 44 44 40 44 31 43 63 56 57 67 61 74 0 -4 0 3 -3 -6 0 -7 0 5 3 3 0 5 0 -2 9 4 0 -1 -6 -6 -7 -8 159 Case 29 51 39 44 46 48 46 65 67 50 48 59 55 50 59 46 46 Subject 38 55 41 38 68 48 48 58 45 60 57 49 59 58 49 53 SX 43 13-■17 3 9--20 -3 17 8 5-■12 2 6 -8 2 -4 -6 45 67 49 88 47 45 44 48 44 51 46 45 47 53 50 43 50 46 45 58 57 75 47 49 44 48 50 52 46 45 47 45 50 43 52 45 0 10 -9 13 0 -4 0 0 -6 -1 0 0 0 7 0 0 -1 2 59 52 42 45 48 61 45 47 48 58 44 56 41 69 59 65 45 43 55 56 52 60 42 45 48 48 42 43 48 49 49 57 44 69 61 72 51 49 46 53 7 -8 0 0 0 12 3 4 0 9 -4 -1 -3 0 -2 -7 -5 -6 9 3 49 54 48 43 58 58 43 45 63 51 61 56 58 62 55 60 58 59 43 44 41 39 38 36 49 50 48 48 53 49 44 51 50 48 49 48 47 49 47 53 28 48 50 48 46 46 45 45 0 4 0 -6 5 8 -1 -7 13 4 12 8 11 12 8 6 29 10 -7 -4 -5 -7 -7 -9 Case 30 69 45 56 46 43 54 45 49 68 46 49 51 29 51 53 46 Subject 59 39 54 49 43 66 58 54 45 60 58 57 43 59 57 46 SX 49 9 6 2 -3 0*-12-•13 -5 23-•13 -9 -6--14 -8 -4 0 45 29 46 44 45 51 61 48 47 41 46 58 47 45 46 45 52 58 45 29 68 44 45 47 59 48 44 41 46 45 47 53 50 45 52 54 0 0-•22 0 0 4 2 0 3 0 0 12 0 -7 -4 0 0 4 52 52 57 45 48 44 50 53 48 67 57 55 58 46 51 38 45 53 46 56 52 43 49 45 48 48 46 53 48 60 54 59 50 44 51 42 42 43 46 53 0 9 8 0 0 -4 4 0 0 8 4 -4 9 2 0 -5 3 11 0 3 49 45 48 60 42 53 51 49 48 53 52 46 44 45 40 53 43 45 64 42 47 55 52 47 49 41 48 65 37 59 51 73 61 51 51 44 44 48 40 48 31 46 60 42 49 59 51 49 0 4 0 -5 5 -6 0-•25-■13 2 1 2 0 -3 0 5 12 0 5 0 -2 -4 1 -2 Case 31 59 46 46 60 72 46 56 53 67 39 45 33 49 50 57 60 Subject (Scores available: for First Session only) SX 54 65 39 41 44 73 40 48 48 46 41 46 45 47 45104 43 52 97 45 44 68 45 48 47 50 45 48 53 47 43 58 44 42 42 42 55 65 53 49 41 48 45 56 55 51 43 43 50 43 45 44 49 47 48 31 47 57 54 50 57 Case 32 50 49 53 38 45 54 52 61 44 63 48 47 64 46 42 46 Subject 33 52 42 37 55 60 58 74 45 48 51 54 52 50 49 46 SX 60 17 -3 10 I--10 -6 -6--13 -2 15 -3 -7 12 -3 -7 0 65 67 66 71 45 42 43 48 58 54 46 45 47 45 46 45 52 45 86 67 52 66 45 42 45 48 53 52 46 45 47 45 46 43 52 45 -20 0 14 5 0 0 -2 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 45 41 42 45 48 43 66 47 48 47 52 47 53 55 59 45 51 53 46 46 45 51 46 45 48 54 48 49 48 52 49 48 47 55 56 45 60 61 46 53 0-■10 -5 0 0-■11 17 -2 0 -5 3 -1 6 0 2 0 -9 -8 0 -7 49 41 48 42 59 68 46 50 49 48 52 56 69 61 47 '4 52 59 38 54 47 41 41 43 49 58 48 43 58 60 39 60 54 47 48 52 66 56 47 49 30 53 41 56 41 37 37 41 0-17 0 -1 1 8 7-•10 -5 1 4 4 3 6 0 -5 22 5 -4 -2 6 4 4 2 160 Case 33 48 35 52 48 43 71 69 57 45 45 42 58 44 38 46 46 Subject 38 61 52 48 43 57 52 43 57 45 34 49 47 30 46 46 SX 69 11-■26 0 0 0 14 17 14--11 0 8 9 -3 8 0 0 45 67 54 44 45 51 41 48 44 51 46 45 47 53 46 45 52 45 45 48 49 44 45 49 41 48 44 48 46 45 47 45 46 47 52 46 0 19 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 7 0 -2 0 -2 52 38 54 45 48 74 38 57 48 56 86 41 50 55 42 45 53 60 74 56 52 49 46 45 48 66 48 53 48 58 78 37 61 58 39 47 53 71 55 49 0--11 8 0 0 8--10 4 0 -2 8 4--12 -2 2 -2 0--11 19 7 49 45 48 50 51 74 53 50 65 58 49 59 47 58 63 59 50 59 50 62 44 43 43 52 49 41 48 65 37 55 44 47 55 45 58 48 47 48 47 51 30 47 46 38 50 46 48 39 0 4 0--15 14 19 8 3 9 13 -9 12 0 10 16 8 20 12 4 24 -6 -3 -5 13 Case 34 51 52 51 50 47 45 50 42 42 55 43 33 49 47 46 46 Subject (Scores available for First Session only) SX 74 45 29 43 44 57 62 43 48 47 41 46 45 55 67 81 55 52110 45 52 76 47 48 50 42 55 48 58 62 41 64 46 49 38 42 43 46 49 49 41 48 63 40 41 64 41 51 59 57 52 44 49 40 63 29 51 63 44 51 59 Case 35 60 46 39 49 63 53 45 63 42 43 54 50 65 54 57 54 Subject 56 36 44 71 59 50 45 65 44 70 56 47 65 56 53 46 SX 77 5 10 -5-22 4 3 0-3 -3-27 - 1 3 0 - 2 4 8 45 48 68 44 45 40 44 48 44 52 46 50 47 45 46 45 52 48 45 48 68 44 45 38 43 48 44 54 46 45 47 45 46 47 52 46 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 -1 0 5 0 0 0 -2 0 2 59 49 42 45 48 50 52 51 51 67 47 48 53 35 47 38 42 49 46 46 59 49 46 45 48 49 54 47 48 56 40 51 56 33 54 38 45 60 46 49 0 0-5 0 0 1-1 4 3 11 7-3-3 2-7 0 -3-11 0 -3 49 63 48 74 28 43 48 62 48 63 56 56 44 54 55 44 55 56 61 49 38 42 40 42 49 58 48 66 36 39 53 63 42 66 52 59 44 53 47 81 30 57 62 57 39 44 42 48 0 4 0 8-8 3-5-1 6-3 4-3 0 1 8-37 25 -1 -1 -8 -2 -2 -2 -6 Case 36 63 70 35 35 43 38 39 40 44 50 50 55 40 50 53 53 Subject 57 58 52 36 52 40 50 48 38 53 49 54 49 47 53 46 SX 81. 6 12-18 -1-10 -2-11 -87-311-9306 45 39 46 62 45 38 43 48 62 63 59 45 51 45 46 72 51 46 45 39 57 62 45 40 43 48 62 66 46 45 47 45 46 60 52 46 0 0-11 0 0-2 0 0 0 -2 14 0 5 0 0 13 -1 0 52 45 45 45 48 47 54 53 48 55 43 62 58 64 47 58 45 64 55 46 59 40 42 45 48 54 56 53 48 47 52 52 50 62 47 63 51 64 55 49 -7 5 3 0 0-7-1 0 0 8 -9 10 9 2 0-5-5 0 0-3 49 45 48 48 53 62 32 48 36 34 42 39 80 41 55 42 44 39 35 46 52 41 45 39 49 41 48 45 56 64 44 42 40 44 76 50 72 51 47 47 28 51 41 31 50 43 46 32 0 4 0 3-3 -1-13 6 -3-11-34-11 8-10 8 -5 15-11 -6 15 2-3-1 7 161 Case 37 48 57 36 41 67 47 54 44 61 50 33 29 22 39 49 53 Subject 45 48 66 59 43 44 56 43 67 48 28 27 27 33 49 53 SX 1 34 3 9- -29--17 24 4 -2 1 -6 2 5 2 -5 6 0 0 45 29 43 44 47 51 44 48 59 63 46 45107 53 46 45 52 52 45 29 44 49 47 45 46 48 44 47 46 45111 60 46 48 52 54 0 0 0 -5 0 7 -2 0 15 16 0 0 -5 -7 0 -3 0 -2 45 42 54 45 48 40 69 55 48 47 45 39 58 44 56 42 45 49 46 49 52 45 65 45 48 40 63 51 48 50 51 43 58 40 51 42 57 43 46 59 -7 -3'-11 0 0 0 5 4 0 -3 -6 -4 0 4 5 0- -11 6 0- -10 49 58 48 63 40 50 60 35 56 66 40 51 44 53 71 67 41 52 72 72 44 57 47 76 49 41 48 61 41 42 55 36 59 68 43 52 44 51 71 78 28 52 75 65 39 51 44 64 0 17 0 2 -2 9 5 -1 -3 -2 -3 -1 0 2 0- -10 13 0 -4 8 4 5 3 13 Case 38 62 35 36 43 58 48 63 67 46 46 67 62 50 68 53 46 Subject 58 51 35 41 57 54 52 57 50 60 62 58 50 63 53 46 SX I 39 4--15 1 2 1 -7 11 10 -5--13 5 3 0 6 0 0 65 86 65 44 45 58 49 48 58 41 87 45 47 45 46 43 52 48 45 58 60 44 45 49 50 48 63 46 46 50 47 45 46 43 52 46 20 29 5 0 0 9 -1 0 -6 -4 41 -5 0 0 0 0 0 2 45 53 62 45 48 66 40 45 48 61 46 62 44 53 47 42 57 43 46 49 45 48 57 45 48 72 38 49 48 50 55 56 47 51 49 40 58 43 46 53 0 4 5 0 0 -7 2 -4 0 11 -9 6 -3 2 -2 2 -2 0 0 -3 49 41 48 42 59 52 63 63 52 52 54 53 47 53 40 46 43 53 49 48 58 58 57 55 49 80 48 62 40 44 53 62 46 45 46 46 47 50 47 44 30 47 46 51 58 57 55 56 0-39 0- -19 18 8 10 1 6 7 8 7 0 3 -8 2 14 6 2 -3 -1 1 2 -2 Case 39 57 43 47 86 46 53 65 53 39 53 54 61 50 51 42 46 Subject 39 59 65 70 46 51 52 47 47 61 49 54 53 47 42 46 SX 92 19--16-•18 16 0 2 13 6 -8 -8 4 6 -2 4 0 0 45 39 49 62 45 45 43 48 44 74 59 45 47 45 46 45 50 45 86 39 49 57 45 47 43 48 44 51 59 45 47 45 46 45 52 46 ■41 0 0 4 0 -2 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 -2 45 46 45 45 67 70 40 57 48 49 52 43 38 69 66 79 51 55 28 69 52 60 56 45 48 50 54 47 48 46 52 41 47 66 71 77 45 60 37 53 -7-■14-•11 0 19 20- •14 10 0 3 -1 3 -9 2 -5 2 6 -5 -9 17 49 71 48 37 64 79 39 44 46 41 58 54 83 54 47 53 38 55 32 45 49 36 40 35 49 80 48 60 42 53 36 46 38 40 46 47 63 47 55 42 30 47 38 52 47 39 42 40 0 -9 0- ■23 22 26 2 -2 7 1 12 8 19 7 -8 11 8 8 -6 -7 2 -3 -2 -5 Case 40 47 56 51 41 92 51 50 54 59 50 60 57 41 61 53 46 Subject 38 56 58 40 61 52 48 58 50 45 60 61 52 59 49 46 SX 93 9 0 -6 0 31 -1 2 -4 9 5 0 -4-•10 2 4 0 45 39 41 44 45 47 44 48 44 44 59 45 47 45 46 47 51 46 45 39 41 49 45 47 44 48 44 49 46 45 47 45 46 48 51 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5 14 0 0 0 0 -2 0 2 52 49 60 45116 51 52 53 48 52 52 57 47 60 51 74 50 66 28 66 59 51 59 45116 53 39 47 48 53 56 56 47 64 51 70 45109 18 59 -7 -2 2 0 0 -2 13 6 0 -2 -3 1 0 -4 0 5 5-■43 9 7 57 50 48 37 64 72 47 62 33 45 49 48 52 44 47 47 42 46 49 47 52 49 53 47 49 45 48 44 57 73 47 67 38 47 49 48 50 44 47 40 28 46 52 48 49 49 52 47 8 4 0 -7 6 -1 0 -5 -5 -2 0 0 3 1 0 7 14 0 -4 0 4 0 1 0 162 Case 41 56 50 41 53 54 60 67 48 60 43 56 57 52 54 60 53 Subject 53 50 41 49 50 63 56 48 61 45 54 56 49 53 57 46 SX 94 2 0 0 4 4 -3 11 0 -1 -2 2 2 3 2 4 6 65 48 43 66 45 51 46 48 44 41 59 73 47 45 46 48 52 46 65 48 43 75 45 58 46 48 44 41 59 65 47 45 46 51 52 46 0 0 0 -9 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 -2 0 0 52 48 42 52 48 40 53 55 48 49 47 65 50 60 54 56 55 53 46 49 52 46 42 62 48 44 46 57 48 49 43 50 50 62 59 58 53 64 46 56 0 1 0- -10 0 -4 7 -2 0 0 3 15 0 -2 -5 -2 2- -11 0 -7 49 76 48 42 59 41 51 61 51 51 49 44 44 52 55 54 60 47 58 42 49 59 49 50 49 58 48 42 59 43 54 54 52 55 54 47 44 52 40 60 30 49 61 41 47 57 48 47 0 17 0 0 0 -1 -2 7 -1 -4 -4 -3 0 0 16 -6 31 -2 -2 1 2 3 1 3 Case 42 56 32 46 69 48 87 62 55 59 50 42 49 52 40 60 46 Subject 50 48 49 69 43 80 58 49 65 43 42 49 52 40 60 46 MC 03 6- -17 -2 0 5 8 4 6 -6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 58 43 44 80 60 55 48 44 50 46 45 47 89 46 43 52 45 45 48 41 44 68 60 61 48 44 45 46 45 47 53 46 43 52 45 0 10 3 0 13 0 -6 0 0 5 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 52 39 42 57 48 43 59 49 48 58 54 43 58 53 54 45 44 47 46 53 59 43 42 54 48 38 53 49 48 70 50 41 61 49 56 45 42 49 46 49 -7 -4 0 2 0 5 6 0 0- -12 3 3 -3 4 -2 0 2 -2 0 3 49 63 48 58 44 52 65 67 41 48 51 47 47 45 47 49 62 46 55 44 67 68 71 59 49 54 48 64 38 43 50 67 44 44 47 43 47 41 47 47 26 42 56 44 57 59 61 52 0 9 0 -6 5 9 15 0 -3 4 4 4 0 4 0 1 35 4 -1 0 10 9 9 7 Case 43 45 34 50 46 47 64 63 98 50 45 32 53 58 26 46 59 Subject 69 31 41 40 50 69 .69 65 57 58 46 57 65 41 49 53 MC 1 05 -25 3 10 6 -2 -5 -6 33 -7--13--13 -4 -8- -14 -4 7 45 58 63 62 45 76 43 48 44 57 46 45 47 53 46 48 52 84 65 67 71 62 45 62 53 48 47 53 46 45 47 45 46 55 51 78 - 20- -10 -8 0 0 13--10 0 -3 4 0 0 0 7 0 -7 1 6 66 53 54 45 48 55 48 43 48 50 95 38 53 44 51 42 48 43 46 46 66 43 46 47 57 61 46 38 48 47 81 43 50 42 51 45 48 60 46 53 0 9 8 -2- -10 -7 2 4 0 3 14 -5 3 2 0 -2 0- -17 0 -7 49 50 48 49 52 42 79 59 44 57 58 57 47 49 &1 38 43 54 55 48 65 65 71 61 49 63 60 52 49 54 76 64 56 68 77 65 44 54 h / 44 26 61 60 40 51 55 57 45 0-13--12 -3 3--12 3 -5--13--11- -19 -8 3 -5 0 -6 17 -7 -5 8 13 10 13 16 Case 44 45 48 63 51 43 54 50 53 48 50 51 68 50 45 60 46 Subject 63 32 41 44 56 58 62 52 50 39 53 68 46 47 64 46 .MC 08 -18 16 22 8- -13 -4--11 1 -2 10 -1 0 4 -2 -4 0 45 39 49 71 45 56 41 48 44 43 46 53 51 45 46 43 52 48 45 58 48 56 45 49 43 48 44 55 59 45 53 45 46 46 51 46 0- -19 1 14 0 7 -1 0 0- - 12- -14 8 -2 0 0 -2 1 2 59 53 73 45 48 61 42 57 48 52 76 51 35 51 56 45 47 52 46 53 52 50 82 45 48 50 44 57 48 50 69 50 32 49 56 51 42 85 46 56 7 3 -9 0 0 10 -1 0 0 2 6 1 3 2 0 -7 5--33 0 -3 49 71 48 43 58 49 46 68 47 37 45 40 72 42 47 38 37 41 43 44 67 59 63 51 49 63 57 40 61 56 49 63 47 40 43 41 58 42 47 39 26 41 47 46 66 62 65 56 0 9 -9 3 -3 -6 -3 5 0 -2 1 0 14 0 0 -1 11 0 -5 -3 1 -4 -2 -5 163 Case 45 52 61 50 54 43 47 50 44 61 43 52 53 53 51 46 46 Subject 51 61 54 56 43 49 45 43 64 39 51 53 49 51 53 46 MC 11 1 -1 -3 -2 0 -3 6 1 -2 3 0 0 4 0 -7 0 65 58 43 44 45 60 54 48 71 41 46 45 47 45 46 58 52 45 45 58 41 44 45 47 66 48 72 41 46 45 55 53 46 53 52 48 20 0 3 0 0 13--12 0 -1 0 0 0 -8 -7 0 5 0 -4 52 61 43 57 48 36 60 47 48 56 39 42 50 46 49 47 53 43 46 53 - 52 58 52 49 48 39 60 43 55 55 42 43 53 60 49 42 54 43 46 53 0 3 -9 7 0 -3 0 4 -7 2 -3 -1 -3-•13 0 5 -1 0 0 0 49 50 48 72 31 42 46 54 42 49 45 44 44 52 47 46 63 47 52 50 47 51 44 51 49 41 48 67 35 43 41 53 43 46 44 41 44 51 47 46 26 45 52 46 44 50 42 47 0 9 0 4 -4 -1 5 1 -1 2 1 3 0 1 0 0 37 2 0 4 3 1 2 4 Case 46 65 43 53 61 52 78 60 41 57 38 55 43 52 59 53 53 Subject 55 48 57 51 61 68 62 45 33 75 53 50 49 54 53 59 MC 18 10 -5 -3 9 -9 10 -2 -4 24'-37 2 -6 2 5 0 -7 45 58 46 49 45 60 53 48 44 41 46 93 51 45 46 48 52 72 45 58 41 44 45 56 49 48 50 41 46 91 51 45 46 47 52 93 0 0 5 4 0 4 4 0 -6 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 O'-20 45 65 73 74 48 44 45 49 58 49 50 46 58 35 49 38 42 43 46 46 45 53 62 76 48 45 48 49 51 49 47 38 53 40 44 38 42 53 46 43 0 11 11 -2 0 -1 -3 0 7 0 3 8 6 -4 5 0 0- -11 0 3 49 41 48 64 38 41 67 43 56 51 52 52 44 49 40 60 39 51 52 49 62 61 65 59 49 41 48 55 47 42 63 41 49 47 51 52 52 51 47 65 26 52 44 52 65 59 63 59 0 0 0 9 -8 0 3 2 7 4 2 0 -8 -2 -8 -5 13 -1 8 -3 -4 3 2 0 Case 47 59 54 51 55 57 45 45 63 43 41 47 42 50 50 46 55 Subject 64 55 50 66 46 44 50 63 41 45 52 47 46 53 49 46 MC 22 -6 -1 1- -12 11 1 -6 0 2 -3 -4 -5 4 -4 -4 8 45 58 47 54 45 38 41 48 93 58 46 45 47 60 46 46 52 46 45 48 45 44 45 38 41 48 44 77 46 45 51 74 46 43 52 48 0 10 2 10 0 0 0 0 48-■19 0 0 -5--14 0 2 0 -2 52 39 71 45 48 41 71 57 48 44 55 46 61 53 47 49 42 47 65 46 52 39 71 47 48 45 59 57 48 43 54 51 61 55 49 51 51 83 46 53 0 0 0 -2 0 -4 12 0 0 2 1 -5 0 -2 -2 -2 -8- ■36 19 -7 49 41 48 37 64 64 43 54 37 47 40 46 50 53 55 45 36 49 47 63 46 46 43 56 49 41 48 37 64 60 40 55 47 56 45 50 44 54 47 51 26 52 57 58 36 40 36 45 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 -1 -9 -9 -4 -4 5 -1 8 -7 9 -3-■10 5 10 6 7 11 Case 48 53 47 54 48 45 57 48 53 38 53 41 39 41 44 53 46 Subject 61 51 54 36 43 59 65 49 45 45 44 42 49 45 53 46 MC 30 -8 -4 1 12 2 -2- •17 3 -8 8 -2 -4 -8 -1 0 0 45 58 43 49 45 40 44 48 44 59 59 45 47 45 46 43 52 45 45 48 50 54 45 51 43 48 44 55100 45 47 53 46 43 52 46 0 10 -6 -5 0- •11 1 0 0 4-■41 0 0 -7 0 0 0 -2 52 35 46 98 48 46 50 47 48 47 47 45 53 51 39 63 48 43 55 53 52 35 48 66 48 49 40 45 48 49 59 46 56 53 35 67 45 53 74 53 0 0 -2 31 0 -3 10 2 0 -2- •12 -1 -3 -2 5 -5 2- ■ 11- •19 0 49 41 48 37 64 57 46 42 64 47 58 53 55 43 79 59 55 49 49 43 48 43 51 39 49 41 48 41 60 60 44 43 64 45 51 49 52 44 71 56 26 50 43 47 50 44 50 43 0 0 0 -4 4 -3 1 -1 0 2 7 3 3 -2 8 3 29 -1 6 -4 -2 -1 1 -4 164 Case 49 42 39 47 44 45 45 43 66 42 50 48 48 61 47 46 46 Subject 53 55 47 64 44 44 45 50 39 63 48 47 53 49 53 53 mc ; 37 -11- -17 -1- -20 1 1 -2 16 3'-13 0 1 8 -2 -7 -6 45 58 53 49 45 49 48 48 44 53 59 45 47 45 46 45 52 46 45 48 41 49 45 47 51 48 44 56 87 45 47 53 46 45 51 46 0 10 12 0 0 2 -4 0 0 -3'-27 0 0 -7 0 0 1 0 66 61 60 45 48 57 58 43 48 60 64 52 47 60 51 56 56 43 46 49 59 50 57 54 48 54 60 47 48 58 58 50 50 66 51 58 83 49 55 63 7 11 3 ' -10 0 3 -1 -4 0 2 6 3 -3 -7 0 -2' -27 -6 -9'-13 49 63 48 46 55 39 54 56 57 54 54 52 47 53 47 57 51 52 54 46 48 50 48 47 49 63 48 46 55 52 43 55 50 43 45 41 44 42 47 50 26 41 54 45 52 53 53 48 0 0 0 0 0- -13 10 1 7 11 10 10 3 11 0 8 25 11 0 1 -4 -3 -5 -1 Case 50 72 47 66 48 43 56 54 44 47 53 50 61 46 46 57 46 Subject 64 36 65 53 43 71 48 50 56 50 52 55 46 52 57 46 MC 40 7 11 1 -5 0- -15 6 -6 -8 3 -2 6 -1 -5 0 0 45 58 41 53 45 38 44 48 69 60 59 45 51 45 46 48 52 45 45 58 41 44 45 38 44 48 97 63 59 45 55 45 46 43 52 45 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0- -28 -2 0 0 -3 0 0 4 0 0 66 52 56 47 48 39 68 53 48 50 45 47 53 53 59 45 57 49 46 49 66 47 68 45 48 47 78 49 48 55 48 57 53 44 49 49 57 43 74 46 0 5--12 2 0 -7--10 4 0 -5 -3--10 0 9 10 -5 -1 6- -28 3 49 41 48 48 54 48 56 51 48 48 43 46 44 44 63 45 55 45 56 55 57 60 61 65 49 45 48 54 47 55 58 50 45 53 45 49 44 46 47 43 26 48 58 57 53 58 58 64 0 -4 0 -7 6 -7 -2 1 3 -5 -1 -3 0 -2 16 2 29 -3 -2 -2 4 3 3 1 Case 51 35 65 41 52 52 44 39 41 55 50 42 43 49 43 57 46 Subject 53 46 42 54 54 48 48 51 48 48 42 46 53 41 57 46 MC 44 •18 18 -1 -2 -1 -4 -9-■11 8 2 0 -3 -5 2 0 0 45 48 41 44 45 38 44 48 44 57 46 50 47 45 46 50 52 45 45 48 41 44 45 45 50 48 44 54 46 62 47 45 46 43 52 46 0 0 0 0 0 -7 -6 0 0 3 0-■12 0 0 0 7 0 -2 45 51 42 45 48 36 58 45 48 55 40 38 61 49 49 42 45 .43 46 83 45 52 42 45 48 34 54 45 48 53 45 41 58 55 44 45 45 55 65 83 0 -1 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 2 -5 -3 3 -7 5 -2 0- ■12-•19 0 49 50 48 77 26 42 60 41 47 51 61 51 44 48 40 40 61 50 52 39 56 57 59 46 49 41 48 57 45 41 64 38 57 60 58 57 72 54 47 43 26 56 56 4 C 50 53 52 52 0 9 0 20-19 1 -5 3-11 -9 4 -7-27 -7 -8 -3 35 -7 -4 -9 6 4 7 -6 Case 52 48 34 62 40 44 38 45 57 70 48 43 33 47 48 46 98 Subject 44 39 58 43 43 38 48 54 69 41 47 36 50 51 46 91 MC , 51 5 -5 4 -3 1 0 -4 3 2 7 -3 -3 -3 -3 0 7 45 39 43 49 55 49 67 48 44 46 46 58 47 45 46 50 52 46 65 48 41 44 55 54 66 48 44 46 46 56 55 45 46 55 52 50 -20- -10 3 4 0 -4 1 0 0 -1 0 2 -8 0 0 -5 0 -4 59 61 42 54106 44 64 43 48 23 47 46 58 46 59 42 42 49 46 53 52 57 42 52 48 40 62 47 48 47 55 47 58 49 54 42 50 43 46 49 7 4 0 2 58 4 2 -4 0- ■24 -8 -1 0 -2 5 0 -8 6 0 3 49 45 48 40 61 39 76 42 49 76 64 70 44 70 47 58 62 71 56 53 47 50 47 53 49 45 48 48 53 41 67 41 55 71 64 66 44 67 47 57 26 67 56 50 44 49 45 48 0 0 0 -9 8 -2 9 1 -6 5 0 4 0 3 0 1 35 4 0 3 3 2 2 4 165 Case 53 45 56 39 40 65 67 67 46 54 50 54 47 54 55 46 46 Subject 51 59 42 59 55 63 67 41 49 55 55 50 52 56 46 53 MC 55 -6 -3 -2- -19 9 4 0 5 5 -5 -1 -3 2 -1 0 -6 65 58 44 44 45 54 64104 58 54 46 45 51 45 46 50 52 50 65 58 47 44 57 51 62 61 56 46 46 45 59 45 58 53 52 50 0 0 -3 0- -13 2 1 43 1 9 0 0 -8 0- -11 -4 0 0 45 46 51 83 77 49 57 47 48 53 42 48 58 55 56 40 42 43 46 66 45 43 49 83 67 55 52 47 48 55 42 50 53 55 59 45 45 53 55 63 0 3 2 0 10 -6 5 0 0 -2 -1 -1 6 0 -2 -5 -3--11 -9 3 49 45 48 63 39 48 62 42 48 55 52 51 44 53 55 53 54 52 56 48 53 59 54 56 49 45 48 62 40 44 50 46 49 49 46 44 44 52 63 51 26 47 55 47 50 58 49 54 0 0 0 1 -1 3 12 -4 -1 6 5 7 0 1 -8 2 28 5 1 2 3 2 5 3 Case 54 37 56 62 65 77 55 56 49 42 55 40 57 47 35 53 46 Subject 57 50 58 61 54 53 52 48 45 43 47 61 46 43 57 46 MC ! 59 •20 6 4 4 24 2 4 1 -3 12 -7 -3 . 1 -8 -4 0 45 67 50 44 47 60 44 48 44 47 46 45 47 45 46 48 52 46 45 67 47 44 47 42 45 48 44 51 46 50 47 45 46 47 52 48 0 0 3 0 0 18 -1 0 0 -4 0 -5 0 0 0 1 0 -2 45 36 52 45 48 45 47 62 48 50 75 39 47 60 66 65 42 64 55 56 45 42 66 45 48 48 47 59 48 44 57 43 44 66 68 65 45 43 65 49 0 -6- ■14 0 0 -3 0 2 0 6 18 -4 3 -7 -2 0 -3 22 -9 7 49 71 53 50 51 69 36 60 46 33 40 40 91 48 55 40 42 43 31 51 64 46 47 47 49 71 48 39 62 66 41 58 51 36 43 44 83 49 63 40 26 46 33 53 63 47 49 49 0 0 5 11- ■11 2 -5 2 -5 -3 -2 -4 8 -2 -8 -1 15 -3 -2 -2 1 -1 -2 -2 Case 55 47 35 49 52 43 69 65 55 65 51 47 54 49 45 57 53 Subject 63 41 51 44 44 58 63 52 45 55 51 52 50 52 53 46 MC 62 -16 -6 -2 9 -2 11 2 3 19 -3 -4 2 -1 -7 4 6 65 48 41 44 47 56 46 48 52 64 46 45 47 45 46 45 52 46 65 48 47 44 47 51 43 48 44 65 46 45 47 45 46 47 51 46 0 0 -7 0 0 4 4 0 7 -1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 0 59 44 54 57 48 57 49 66 48 46 56 64 53 46 47 47 50 47 46 59 59 43 56 62 48 55 45 64 48 44 50 53 53 49 51 63 67 50 46 59 0 0 -2 -5 0 2 4 2 0 2 5 10 0 -2 -5--16-■17 -3 0 0 49 58 48 46 56 45 57 41 54 54 49 55 50 57 40 52 53 56 49 58 50 50 46 56 49 58 48 41 60 60 58 45 47 50 46 50 47 55 40 54 26 52 49 56 56 57 53 61 0 0 0 4 -4-■15 -1 -4 7 4 3 5 3 2 0 -2 27 4 0 3 -6 -7 -7 -5 Case 56 41 46 79 54 43 44 39 55 61 51 56 66 32 55 49 46 Subject 49 54 60 38 43 39 45 59 72 48 50 60 34 48 53 46 MC 65 -8 -8 20 16 0 5 -6 -4--11 3 7 6 -2 7 -4 0 45 58 46 44 47 49 43 48 50 43 46 45 64 45 46 55 49 45 45 58 44 44 47 45 43 48 50 45 46 45 64 53 46 60 50 46 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 -7 0 -5 -1 -2 52 52 66 45 48 43 45 51 48 44 54 52 38 40 59 63 44 75 55 39 59 60 66 45 48 55 50 53 48 46 61 48 44 46 56 65 42 77 74 49 -7 -8 0 0 0- -12 -5 -2 0 -2 -7 4 -6 -7 2 -2 2 -2- -19-■10 49 54 60 57 45 47 42 69 44 49 57 54 55 51 55 47 44 53 44 46 43 39 42 38 49 58 54 61 41 52 46 68 45 49 56 52 55 49 47 47 26 51 46 45 47 43 46 40 0-4 7 -4 4 -5 -3 2 -1 0 1 2 0 2 8 0 18 2 -2 1 -4 -4 -4 -3 166 Case 57 36 66 49 43 44 36 37 45 50 34 48 53 55 45 49 46 Subject 49 63 32 38 71 40 52 42 55 41 52 50 46 53 46 46 MC 66 -13 3 16 5--27 -4--15 2 -5 -7 -4 4 10 -8 4 0 45 29 59 54 63 42 43 48 44 50 46122 47 45 65 48 52 80 65 48 51 55 60 45 43 48 50 58 46 93 47 45 58 56 52 72 -20- -19 8 -1 3 -2 0 0 -6 -8 0 29 0 0 8 -8 0 7 45 36 57 45 48 44 51 43 76 47 42 42 50 42 37 38 45 43 74 49 45 40 62 45 48 39 57 47 62 47 40 43 50 40 42 40 48 43 83 53 0 -4 -5 0 0 5 -7 -4 14 0 1 -1 0 2 -5 -2 -2 0 -9 -3 49 45 48 63 40 44 55 34 49 54 54 55 44 60 63 50 31 57 46 50 49 49 46 48 49 45 48 65 37 40 57 36 49 55 54 54 44 61 71 50 26 57 47 50 50 51 47 50 0 0 0 -3 3 4 -2 -2 0 " 1 0 1 0 -1 -8 1 5 0 -1 1 -1 -3 -1 -2 Case 58 56 50 55 55 52 46 54 40 53 36 47 45 54 47 49 46 Subject 59 50 59 54 43 47 39 38 48 50 46 49 55 45 46 53 MC i 58 -3 0 -4 0 9 -1 15 2 5--13 0 -4 -1 2 4 -6 65 48 54 50 78 54 58 48 53 41 46 58 47 45 73 51 52 54 45 48 47 44 70 49 49 48 49 41 46 53 47 45 69 51 52 61 20 0 7 5 8 4 9 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 -7 52 58 45 47 48 41 61 43121 53 41 42 58 46 56 40 42 43 46 46 52 48 48 45 48 39 82 43117 55 45 41 50 49 54 38 44 47 46 53 0 10 -3 2 0 2- -21 0 3 -2 -4 1 9 -2 2 2 -2 -5 0 -7 49 41 48 61 41 41 67 39 53 56 49 53 44 46 40 53 56 50 60 55 56 59 63 64 49 71 48 63 39 43 67 38 45 51 49 49 44 48 40 45 26 48 56 49 62 66 66 64 0-30 0 -2 2 -2 0 1 8 5 0 4 0 -2 0 9 30 2 4 5 -6 -6 -3 0 Case 59 38 46 57 60 43 48 58 50 54 53 38 45 36 38 53 46 Subject 62 31 51 45 43 58 60 60 55 60 48 62 33 46 57 59 MC ' 71 -23 14 6 15 0- -10 -2 -9 -1 -7-•10- ■17 2 -8 -4-■13 65 39 56 44 45 65 62 48 49 44 59 45 70 45 46 46 52 56 65 39 53 44 47 54 58 48 47 41 73 45 69 45 46 48 52 63 0 0 3 0 -3 11 5 0 1 3-•14 0 2 0 0 -2 0 -7 59 54 57 49 48 45 48 49 48 69 80 43 58 38 51 38 47 47 55 56 52 48 59 47 48 56 44 53 48 61 68 50 41 46 51 40 48 49 55 59 7 6 -2 2 0- ■11 4 -4 0 8 11 -6 18 -9 0 -2 -1 -2 0 -3 49 45 48 52 49 39 58 50 45 49 48 52 50 47 40 34 46 50 49 55 58 55 60 58 49 41 48 51 51 39 61 62 67 49 50 54 55 58 40 46 26 56 41 54 61 54 54 57 0 4 0 1 -1 0 -2- -11- •22 1 -2 -2 -5-■11 0- ■12 20 -6 7 0 -3 1 6 1 Case 60 62 58 57 70 60 49 45 37 54 39 48 49 52 47 53 79 Subject 51 61 44 68 63 39 48 40 44 50 44 42 49 46 49 79 MC 79 11 -3 13 2 -3 10 -4 -3 10- ■10 3 7 3 2 4 0 65 48 41 44 45 45 46 48 44 41 46 45 47 45 46 57 52 46 86 58 41 44 45 40 44 48 59 41 46 58 47 53 46 53 52 50 • 20- •10 0 0 0 4 2 0- ■15 0 0- ■12 0 -7 0 4 0 -4 52 75 51 45 48 35 50 41 48 60 46 46 61 33 49 40 51 43 46 49 52 62 57 47 48 46 48 45 48 56 47 50 61 35 47 42 45 43 46 63 0 13 -6 -2 0- ■11 2 -4 0 3 -1 -4 0 -2 2 -2 5 0 0- •13 49 41 48 65 38 39 44 54 42 44 51 42 44 44 47 44 48 42 55 38 50 54 51 43 49 58 48 59 43 39 48 46 43 49 48 44 44 50 47 49 26 46 55 44 49 55 47 49 0-17 0 5 -5 0 -3 9 -1 -4 3 -2 0 -6 0 -5 22 -4 0 -5 2 -1 4 -6 167 Case 61 42 39 54 39 43 40 48 59 52 51 55 59 61 52 53 46 Subject 59 32 34 41 44 50 50 68 45 45 60 61 64 58 53 46 MC 82 ■17 7 20 -2 -2- ■11 -2 -9 6 7 -6 -1 -2 -7 0 0 45 58 59 44 45 54 43122 44 41 46 50 47 45 46 45 52 65 45 58 68 49 45 51 43 69 47 41 46 50 47 45 46 45 52 63 0 0 -9 -5 0 2 0 53 -3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 66 67 73 45 48 40 69 70 48 55 59 50 44 49 51 47 53 43 46 39 66 54 66 45 48 40 72 43 48 53 52 55 41 51 49 47 77 49 46 43 0 13 6 0 0 -1 -4 27 0 2 7 -5 3 -2 2 0- •24 -6 0 -3 49 45 48 39 62 52 65 64 56 49 54 52 55 53 47 39 36 53 45 47 65 60 61 56 49 76 48 39 62 56 69 68 53 54 54 54 47 53 40 39 26 54 50 50 61 60 60 58 0-30 0 0 0 -3 -3 -5 3 -5 0 -3 8 0 8 1 9 -2 -5 -3 5 0 1 -2 Case 62 42 65 44 49 63 53 50 43 43 45 48 56 50 45 67 46 Subject 63 63 39 48 61 50 41 39 47 41 50 56 58 48 64 46 MC 85 -21 2 4 1 2 3 9 4 -4 3 -2 1 -7 -2 4 0 45 48 41 44 45 45 43 48 44 43 46 45 47 45 46 43 52 45 45 58 50 44 45 40 45 48 44 41 46 45 47 45 46 45 52 48 0- -10 -9 0 0 4 -2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 -4 45 60 43 45 48 76 39 43 48 55 40 41 50 49 54 40 42 43 46 46 52 62 45 45 48 85 36 41 48 55 42 43 50 44 51 38 45 43 46 43 -7 -1 -2 0 0- ■10 2 2 0 0 -2 -3 0 4 2 2 -3 0 0 3 49 45 48 45 56 43 47 69 58 33 40 35 61 41 63 39 62 37 39 41 87 75 73 60 49 63 48 46 55 40 43 71 41 33 39 33 50 43 55 42 26 37 39 41 79 74 63 59 0-17 0 -1 1 3 3 -2 18 0 2 1 11 -2 8 -2 35 0 0 0 8 1 10 1 Case 63 50 45 36 40 63 38 47 54 58 39 34 31 36 38 49 46 Subject (Scores available for First Session only) MC 90 45 39 46 44 52 38 43 48 44 68 46 45 47 45 46 45 52 45 73 63 42 49 48 48 38 43 48 49 54 37 61 58 54 54 44 43 46 39 49 45 48 45 56 40 68 35 58 63 55 66 47 60 47 67 59 64 51 60 50 49 Case 64 50 41 41 57 48 48 65 67 57 43 51 56 55 49 38110 Subject 53 51 39 50 51 62 71 59 45 50 52 55 50 52 46110 SC 07 -3--10 2 8 -3--14 -6 7 12 -7 -1 1 5 -3 -7 0 45 48 46 44 45 65 41 48 44 41 59 53 47 45 46 43 52 45 45 58 41 44 73 42 43 48 44 41 73 50 51 45 50 43 52 46 0- ■10 5 0- ■28 22 -1 0 0 0- •14 3 -5 0 -4 0 0 -2 30 52 42 45 48 36 51 45 48 63 48 45 53 35 49 38 58 43 46 53 45 54 42 45 48 36 65 47 48 53 42 45 53 35 56 38 53 43 46 53 -14 -2 0 0 0 0- •13 -2 0 9 6 0 0 0 -7 0 5 0 0 0 49 54 48 71 31 43 40 54 51 46 43 39 44 38 40 42 65 38 72 43 43 53 49 47 49 41 48 58 44 40 42 52 47 46 39 37 44 39 47 42 26 37 74 49 46 59 51 57 0 13 0 13-■13 2 -2 2 4 0 4 1 0 -1 -8 0 39 1 -2 -5 -3 -6 -2-11 168 Case 65 35 69 63 58 43 46 48 36 61 51 56 61 50 53 49 46 Subject 28 61 37 39 60 55 71 49 60 45 59 56 53 60 49 53 SC 12 6 8 26 19--17--10- -22- -14 1 7 -4 5 -3 -7 0 -6 45 58 43 44 75 56 45 48 44 41 46 45 47 45 62 65 51 54 45 58 47 44 68 54 54 48 49 50 46 45 47 53 62 52 52 54 0 0 -3 0 8 2 -9 0 -4 -9 0 0 0 -7 0 13 -1 0 30 51 60 45 48 42 57 45 48 53 52 53 44 35 51 45 48 49 46 43 45 45 46 64 57 44 49 45 48 52 57 53 44 38 54 45 45 49 46 46 ■14 5 14-•19-■10 -2 8 0 0 2 -4 0 0 -2 -2 0 2 0 0 -3 49 41 68 45 37 49 46 49 40 43 39 40 44 45 55 44 52 41 55 53 53 59 53 62 49 45 48 60 42 48 55 45 49 51 53 51 47 54 47 54 26 52 49 46 52 53 50 49 0 -4 20- •15 -5 1 -9 4 -9 -8- ■14-■11 -3 -9 8- •10 26-•11 6 7 1 6 3 13 Case 66 42 65 50 49 52 46 45 48 58 36 50 51 53 50 49 46 Subject 42 61 47 54 52 47 54 46 60 41 48 47 55 48 53 46 SC 13 0 4 3 -5 0 -1 -9 2 -2 -5 2 4 -1 1 -4 0 45 58 49 44 45 45 54 48 44 41 46 50 47 45 46 43 52 45 45 58 41 44 45 45 44 48 44 45 46 50 47 45 46 46 51 45 0 0 8 0 0 0 10 0 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 -3 1 0 30 50 43 45 48 39 55 41 48 53 42 43 56 69 51 54 51 43 46 39 52 47 43 45 48 37 49 38 48 52 48 46 58 66 71 51 56 43 46 46 -22 3 0 0 0 2 6 2 0 2 -6 -3 -3 2- -19 2 -5 0 0 -7 49 41 48 54 48 42 40 47 38 40 49 46 69 41 79 42 60 44 43 45 51 43 51 40 49 41 48 47 54 46 37 46 44 44 44 48 58 40 87 46 26 45 49 56 43 39 46 43 0 0 0 7 -7 -4 2 1 -5 -4 5 -2 11 1 -8 -4 34 -1 -6- -11 8 4 5 -3 Case 67 37 42 51 34 47 66 60 63 51 41 56 54 56 56 53 46 Subject 32 31 57 55 77 64 63 58 53 50 57 55 59 57 53 46 SC 19 4 11 -7--21- -30 2 -4 5 -2 -8 -1 -1 -3 -1 0 0 65 48 68 44 45 45 54 48 44 47 46 45 47 82 46 47 51 46 45 48 71 44 45 49 53 48 50 44 59 45 55 82 46 52 52 50 20 0 -3 0 0 -4 1 0 -6 3--14 0 -8 0 0 -5 -1 -4 30 53 43 45 48 42 50 47 48 56 40 52 53 62 51 63 45 60 37 46 45 64 43 45 48 60 43 47 48 53 42 48 53 55 68 63 54 43 37 53 -14-■11 0 0 0- •18 7 0 0 3 -2 4 0 7--17 0 -8 17 0 -7 49 41 55 51 48 43 49 62 61 59 63 59 50 58 47 54 58 59 50 45 41 41 41 39 49 54 89 44 40 46 50 51 53 56 65 62 63 59 55 50 26 61 45 45 44 41 42 39 0-13--34 7 7 -2 -1 10 7 2 -3 -2- -14 -1 -8 4 32 -2 5 0 -3 0 -1 0 Case 68 36 55 50 57 43 48 47 47 45 48 44 39 50 46 49 46 Subject 43 46 54 48 52 53 50 48 40 55 45 38 53 48 57 53 sc : 21 -6 9 -4 9 -9 -6 -4 -1 5 -7 0 1 -3 -1 -7 -6 45 39 46 44 47 51 50 48 44 41 46 53 47 67 92 45 50 54 45 39 44 50 47 40 46 48 44 41 46 61 47 45 69 44 51 56 0 0 2 -5 0 11 4 0 0 0 0 -8 0 22 23 0 -1 -2 30 57 57 45 48 47 43 51 48 52 49 45 58 49 49 40 58 49 46 43 59 59 56 45 48 42 44 55 48 53 43 41 56 44 56 49 51 50 46 46 ■29 -2 2 0 0 5 -1 -4 0 -2 5 4 3 4 -7 -9 7 -2 0 -3 49 50 48 42 59 49 55 50 53 50 40 45 44 44 47 39 46 44 61 61 54 61 58 71 49 50 57 44 56 60 53 63 54 46 41 42 44 44 40 40 26 43 57 53 56 63 59 65 0 0 -9 -1 3-■11 2- ■12 -1 4 -1 3 0 0 8 -1 19 2 4 7 -3 -2 -1 5 169 Case 69 61 32 66 52 66 49 43 52 66 56 55 51 56 55 42 46 Subject 42 54 67 50 63 46 35 45 66 53 60 56 66 59 46 46 SC 25 19-22 -1 2 4 3 7 7 -1 3 -5 -5'-10 -4 -4 0 45 58 68 44 45 56 66 48 44 41 46 45 47 45 46 46 52 45 45 58 71 44 45 56 58 48 44 52 87 45 47 45 46 49 52 46 0 0 -3 0 0 0 9 0 O'-10' -41 0 0 0 0 -3 0 -2 30 48 43 49 48 44 49 49 48 61 54 59 53 40 47 40 42 53 46 53 45 46 46 52 48 44 62 43 48 52 46 56 47 40 63 40 42 49 46 53 -14 2 -3 -2 0 O'-13 6 0 9 8 3 6 0- -17 0 0 5 0 0 49 67 48 42 59 51 56 55 63 53 76 49 44 50 55 53 60 50 57 31 51 56 52 37 49 63 48 43 56 47 47 46 55 51 48 46 44 48 55 54 26 47 58 47 45 50 46 47 0 4 0 0 2 4 9 9 7 2 28 3 0 2 0 -1 34 3 -1' -17 6 6 6- -11 Case 70 61 54 62 64 43 41 43 46 59 48 64 57 68 62 49 46 Subject 56 45 47 42 72 48 62 58 54 66 71 64 62 71 57 46 SC 35 6 9 16 22- -29 -7--19--11 5--18 -7 -7 7 -8 -7 0 45 48 71 59 45 47 54 48 44 46 46 45 47 45 46 77 50 46 65 58 65 54 45 56 51 48 72 43 73 45 47 45 46 69 47 48 -20- -10 6 5 0 -9 2 0- -28 2- -27 0 0 0 0 8 2 -2 30 47 45 47 48 50 45 55 48 46 42 84 47 53 47 51 51 60 46 53 52 50 45 52 48 52 39 62 48 50 41 68 41 53 44 54 46 64 55 49 -22 -2 0 -5 0 -2 6 -6 0 -5 1 17 6 0 2 -2 5 -5 -9 3 49 41 48 37 64 60 30 56 55 47 51 52 61 48 40 48 57 51 45 51 33 30 32 32 49 45 48 41 60 63 36 57 71 51 59 59 74 48 47 53 26 55 46 49 36 32 37 33 0 -4 0 -4 4 -4 -6 -1- -16 -4 -8 -7--14 1 -8 -5 30 -4 -1 3 -3 -3 -5 -1 Case 71 43 56 54 59 45 51 48 46 47 50 52 52 50 52 53 46 Subject 34 55 60 53 47 59 56 52 36 73 55 59 52 53 49 46 SC 41 9 1 -6 6 -2 -8 -7 -5 11- ■24 -3 -7 -2 -2 4 0 45 48 43 44 47 51 62 48 44 41 46 58 47 45 46 43 52 46 65 58 44 44 47 40 66 48 44 41 46 58 47 45 46 43 52 50 ■ 20- ■10 0 0 0 11 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 30 64 42 45 48 54 36 68 48 58 48 50 41 71 51 51 45 43 46 43 38 50 49 47 48 55 42 45 48 55 49 51 41 51 59 47 45 43 46 53 -7 14 -8 -2 0 -1 -5 23 0 3 -1 -1 0 20 -7 5 0 0 0- ■10 49 45 48 37 64 43 49 44 46 43 42 46 55 47 40 47 60 46 45 58 57 53 55 60 49 41 48 57 45 47 46 50 45 42 46 44 52 43 47 44 26 43 47 47 55 52 56 49 0 4 0- ■20 19 -4 3 -6 1 1 -4 2 3 4 -8 3 34 3 -2 12 2 1 -1 11 Case 72 53 40 44 56 48 47 63 60 31 76 68 44 56 74 42 46 Subject 33 43 42 37 47 37 71 50 25 92 66 49 55 69 42 46 SC ■ 46 20 -3 2 19 0 11 -7 10 6-■15 2 -4 1 5 0 0 45 58 63 71 45 45 45 48 44 46 46 45 59 53 46 70 47 56 65 67 59 59 45 49 44 48 44 56 46 45 59 53 46101 44 50 20- •10 4 12 0 -4 1 0 0- ■10 0 0 0 0 0-32 3 6 30 34 46 47 48 58 45 49 48 47 49 64 58 51 42 54 60 47 46 53 45 33 43 49 67 58 45 47 48 47 50 57 56 58 47 51 45 43 46 59 ■14 0 3 -2-■19 0 0 2 0 0 -1 6 3 -7 -5 2 15 5 0 -7 49 71 48 45 56 78 51 46 54 56 78 71 47 88 63 54 52 79 33 43 45 37 35 34 129 45 48 45 56 80 50 44 85 67 63 89 50117 63 79 26102 32 71 37 32 29 39 -81 26 0 0 0 -2 1 2-30-11 15-18 -3-29 0-24 26-24 1-28 8 5 6 -5 170 Case 73 62 64 49 36 61 48 37 36 52 39 52 59 42 50 53 46 Subject 49 67 74 44 52 45 41 33 63 45 52 57 49 42 57 46 SC 50 13 -3-25 -7 9 3 -4 3-11 -5 0 3 -7 8 -4 0 45 48 41 76 45 51 43 48 44 51 46 45 47 45 46 60 51 74 45 58 41 68 45 42 44 48 44 61 46 45 47 45 46 57 51 78 0-10 0 8 0 9 -1 0 0-10 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 -4 30 57 45 45 48 66 35 64 48 41 56 43 41 58 47 47 63 43 46 53 52 51 45 45 48 72 42 66 48 44 48 43 41 58 47 54 60 43 46 49 -22 6 0 0 0 -6 -7 -2 0 -3 8 0 0 0 0 -7 2 0 0 3 49 54 48 45 56 48 50 37 43 45 49 48 52 37 55 54 44 44 54 48 56 51 66 49 49 45 48 48 53 43 44 43 36 40 41 41 50 34 47 36 26 38 55 51 59 56 70 56 0 9 0 -3 3 5 6 -6 6 5 8 7 3 3 8 18 18 6 -1 -3 -3 -4 -4 -6 Case 74 45 65 54 58 43 42 39 39 65 39 57 52 43 59 53 46 Subject 45 55 57 52 43 47 50 49 54 45 68 55 62 70 53 46 SC ! 52 0 10 -3 5 0 -6- -11- -10 11 -5--10 -3--20- -10 0 0 45 67 54 57 45 40 54 48 44 45 46 45 47 45 46 45 51 46 45 77 68 66 45 47 50 48 59 50 46 50 47 53 46 46 52 48 0- -10- -14 -9 0 -7 4 0- -15 -5 0 -5 0 -7 0 -1 -1 -2 30 40 42 47 48 58 47 91 48 47 43 68 44 51 49 49 58 53 46 53 45 46 46 57 57 58 45 45 48 49 46 71 41 60 56 47 54 49 55 56 -14 -6 -5--10- -10 0 1 46 0 -2 -3 -4 3 -9 -7 2 5 5 -9 -3 129 41 48 48 54 52 42 49 38 39 49 40 63 37 71 46 54 39 49 38 58 53 61 43 49 41 48 51 51 53 44 52 58 49 47 52 55 44 63 56 26 49 50 58 45 42 48 47 81 0 0 -3 3 0 -2 -4--20- -10 3-■12 8 -6 8- •10 28--10 -1- -20 13 11 13 -4 Case 75 48 60 57 60 43 59 41 43 61 41 47 52 47 46 60 46 Subject 50 46 58 55 43 57 48 49 47 45 44 52 46 42 53 46 SC 61 -3 14 -1 5 0 2 -7 -7 14 -3 3 0 2 3 7 0 45 48 41 44 45 76 49 48 44 41 46 62 47 45 46 43 52 46 45 48 44 44 45 47 46 48 44 41 59 68 47 45 46 43 52 52 0 0 -3 0 0 29 2 0 0 0- ■14 -6 0 0 0 0 0 -6 30 39 42 45 48 39 45 43 48 55 45 43 56 64 44 40 67 43 46 49 45 38 43 45 48 52 53 43 48 53 57 43 56 51 44 40 49 47 46 53 -14 1 -2 0 0- •13 -8 0 0 2- •12 0 0 13 0 0 18 -5 0 -3 49 45 48 77 26 49 42 52 46 36 40 35 47 38 47 38 62 36 50 42 65 65 65 54 49 50 48 58 44 51 46 55 48 39 37 37 50 38 47 51 26 37 56 57 62 67 66 66 0 -4 0 19-•18 -1 -3 -3 -2 -3 3 -1 -3 0 0- •13 35 -1 -6- •16 3 -2 -1- ■13 Case 76 36 54 41- 59 46 48 56 54 43 63 54 44 49 57 49 46 Subject 44 52 36 60 50 49 48 59 37 68 52 46 52 54 49 46 SC 64 -8 2 5 -1 -3 -1 7 -5 7 -5 1 -2 -4 3 0 0 86 48 43 44 68 47 75 48 44 43 46 50 47 53 65 47 52 48 65 48 41 44 55 38 74 48 44 41 46 45 47 53 58 43 52 46 20 0 3 0 13 9 1 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 8 4 0 2 30 65 42 59 77 54 42 49 48 52 44 48 58 51 49 47 48 49 46 43 52 63 43 74 67 62 35 47 48 50 43 47 56 44 56 45 42 43 46 53 •22 1 -2-14 10 -8 7 2 0 2 1 1 3 7 -7 2 5 6 0-10 49 58 48 54 48 47 55 50 47 59 58 54 44 49 40 54 59 52 62 44 45 50 49 45 49 58 48 58 44 43 48 50 42 50 50 47 47 45 47 51 26 46 58 46 47 50 50 47 0 0 0 -4 4 5 7 -1 5 9 9 7 -3 3 -8 3 33 6 4 -2 -2 -1 -1 -3 171 Cases 77 38 54 58 52 43 41 35 52 54 55 47 66 47 42 49 46 Subject 41 58 50 42 50 49 37 58 37 61 48 64 53 42 49 46 SC 70 -3 -5 9 10 -8 -8 -2 -6 17 -7 0 3 -6 -1 0 0 45 58 49 44 45 47 65 48 68 41 46 45 47 45 46 61 52 46 45 48 54 49 45 40 69 48 66 44 46 45 47 45 46 43 52 45 0 10 -5 -4 0 7 -4 0 1 -3 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 2 30 52 42 54 48 61 40 47 48 56 48 46 38 55 54 45 58 49 46 46 52 71 42 57 48 53 52 49 48 55 47 41 41 55 59 49 45 43 46 46 -22- -18 0 -2 0 7--12 -2 0 2 1 5 -3 0 -5 -5 13 6 0 0 49 50 61 54 48 48 48 54 52 48 46 52 63 57 87 47 62 54 43 58 49 45 44 51 49 50 48 62 40 39 42 48 48 46 35 47 50 50 63 47 26 48 47 85 46 45 43 67 0 0 13 -8 8 9 6 7 4 2 11 5 14 7 24 0 36 6 -5--27 4 0 1- -16 Case 73 41 55 43 49 68 37 41 50 63 60 49 40 53 51 46 46 Subject 57 62 41 56 93 39 45 38 44 68 44 38 56 46 57 46 SC 83 -16 -7 2 -7--25 -2 -4 12 19 -8 4 2 -3 6- -11 0 45 48 46 53 45 49 45 48 44 56 46 45 47 67 96 46 51 56 45 39 44 44 45 49 43 48 58 54 46 50 47 60 88 54 52 58 0 10 2 9 0 0 2 0- •13 2 0 -5 0 7 8 -8 -1 -2 30 45 45 62 67 58 51 49 48 40 43 43 56 58 47 56 42 43 55 53 59 39 45 59 67 48 42 49 48 41 42 56 58 62 56 58 44 47 55 56 -29 6 0 2 0 10 10 0 0 -2 1- -13 -3 -4--10 -2 -2 -5 0 -3 49 54 48 42 59 58 50 37 58 53 49 51 47 60 47 54 46 55 47 53 47 48 43 49 49 41 48 61 41 60 41 43 51 42 43 43 52 54 47 56 26 47 41 51 50 48 42 48 0 13 0- •18 17 -2 9 -6 7 11 7 9 -5 6 0 -2 20 8 6 2 -3 0 1 1 Case 79 52 50 53 48 43 48 43 45 56 45 50 45 49 52 46 46 Subject 43 56 57 56 58 54 60 39 72 50 47 37 56 50 46 46 SC 36 9 -6 -4 -8- ■15 -7-■17 6- •16 -5 3 8 -7 2 0 0 45 39 46 44 52 47 44 48 50 77 46 53 47 89 54 52 52 54 65 48 50 44 68 38 44 48 59 79 46 53 47 74 69 61 51 50 • 20- -10 -4 0- ■15 9 0 0 -9 -2 0 0 0 14-•15 -9 1 4 30 43 43 52 48 52 45 53 48 37 54 56. 44 55 54 58 45 53 46 46 59 41 48 49 48 64 48 76 48 41 47 52 50 55 56 56 49 47 46 53 •29 2 -5 2 0- •12 -3-•23 0 -5 7 4 -6 0 -2 2 -4 6 0 -7 49 45 48 37 64 45 63 40 52 60 48 63 50 53 63 54 56 59 51 70 50 48 52 63 49 41 48 42 59 56 57 42 43 53 52 57 52 45 47 47 26 52 51 54 52 49 57 52 0 4 0 -5 5-■11 6 -2 9 7 -4 6 -3 8 16 7 30 7 0 16 -3 -1 -5 11 Case 80 42 31 58 37 43 51 60 64 56 41 66 60 68 64 46 53 Subject 47 63 63 51 58 45 39 43 57 58 57 51 61 58 46 72 SC 1 95 -5-■32 -5-•14-■15 6 21 21 -1- ■17 8 9 8 6 0- •19 65 58 71 49 45 38 64 48 78 43 46 45 47 45 46 46 52 46 45 58 65 49 45 49 61 48 53 41 87 50 47 45 46 47 52 50 20 0 6 0 0- •11 2 0 25 1- •41 -5 0 0 0 -1 0 -4 30 35 42 45 48 54 45 47 48 49 40 80 41 53 49 63 48 43 55 49 45 40 42 52 48 56 42 45 48 49 43 65 53 53 51 61 51 60 65 49 ■14 -5 0 -7 0 -2 3 2 0 0 -3 15-•12 0 -2 2 -3-17 -9 0 49 45 48 37 64 73 56 52 74 62 63 67 52 64 55 61 60 67 46 52 44 41 42 43 49 50 48 44 57 55 35 50 50 43 48 44 58 48 55 50 26 45 45 45 41 40 39 38 0 -4 0 -7 7 19 21 3 24 19 15 23 -5 16 0 11 34 21 1 7 2 2 3 5 APPENDIX H PEARSON P.M. CORRELATION MATRIX, CORRECTED FOR ATTENUATION AS USED FOR MULTIPLE REGRESSION 172 APPENDIX H PEARSON P.M. CORRELATION MATRIX, CORRECTED FOR ATTENUATION AS USED FOR MULTIPLE REGRESSION3 Variable 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 TopWidOl 07 -05 05 -16 -01 -16 -31 13 -26 -04 10 -14 -07 28 -13 -13 -14 08 12 15 -03 -12 BotWid02 07 -28 -04 -04 -22 -70 -76 18 -27 06 14 -02 01 15 -02 -23 -16 -10 -22 -06 -28 -21 LftWid03 -05 -28 13 -51 25 -05 01 12 26 -16 -00 02 -20 -15 -15 -04 -06 13 10 -16 24 36 RitWid04 05 -04 13 -00 -00 -10 -09 -10 -08 03 19 11 -05 -19 -08 -10 -07 06 -06 -09 16 -12 Indent05 -16 -04 -51 -00 -04 18 11 02 05 -17 -27 -09 -10 05 32 06 -02 -14 -21 15 17 -10 DistWW06 -01 -22 25 -00 -04 44 16 -06 -02 -27 -00 -00 -33 -10 09 -27 -01 24 05 -22 06 02 SpanWd07 -16 -70 -05 -10 18 44 67 -05 14 -14 -07 -04 -13 -31 05 06 22 06 28 -20 13 05 DistLL08 -31 -76 01 -09 11 16 67 -29 28 18 -02 24 20 -21 08 41 38 25 21 -14 02 08 InclnL09 13 12 12 -10 02 -06 -06 -29 -48 -10 -15 -14 -06 -23 -23 -23 -09 11 -02 -16 -04 -01 SpanlnlO -26 -27 26 -08 05 -02 14 28 -48 -17 -20 -02 -13 03 47 44 -03 -12 02 20 07 20 LoopiTll -04 06 -16 03 -17 -27 -14 18 -10 -17 58 41 96 28 -11 39 34 36 -04 -04 -41 -42 LoopUZl2 10 14 -00 19 -27 -00 -07 -02 -15 -20 58 02 34 19 -25 -03 33 11 13 -31 -08 -31 LoopLZ13 -14 -02 02 11 -09 -00 -04 24 -14 -02 41 02 35 09 11 31 38 65 14 -07 -35 -15 LoopMZl4 -07 01 -20 -05 -10 -33 -13 20 -06 -13 96 34 35 26 -04 44 24 31 -11 08 -43 -37 LoopShl5 28 15 -15 -19 05 -10 -32 -21 -23 03 28 19 09 26 36 06 -09 -00 -12 06 -14 -11 Baloopl6 -18 -03 -15 -08 32 09 05 08 -23 47 -10 -25 11 -04 36 31 -21 -06 -17 25 -16 02 Tiestrl7 -13 -23 -04 -10 06 -27 06 41 -23 44 39 -03 31 44 06 31 26 34 -04 20 -16 -15 Figur818 -15 -16 -06 -07 -02 -01 22 38 -09 -03 34 33 38 24 -09 -21 26 27 16 -29 06 -03 PLoopLl9 08 -10 13 06 -14 24 06 25 11 -12 36 11 65 31 -00 -06 34 27 13 -26 -31 -26 PStenH20 12 -22 10 -06 -21 05 28 21 -02 02 -04 13 14 -11 -12 -17 -04 16 13 -24 17 04 NoLead21 15 -06 -16 -09 15 -22 -20 -14 -16 20 -04 -31 -07 08 06 25 20 -29 -26 -24 -03 -18 HookIn22 -03 -28 24 16 17 06 13 02 -04 07 -41 -08 -35 -43 -14 -16 -16 06 -31 17 -03 58 HookFn23 -12 -21 36 -12 -10 02 05 08 -00 20 -42 -31 -15 -37 -11 02 -15 -03 -26 04 -18 58 aDecimals have been rounded to hundredths; decimal points have been emitted. APPENDIX H— Continued Variable 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 45 4&> 47° 48 49 TopWidOl -06 17 -11 10 25 -07 -26 -06 05 18 17 -10 35 18 -13 OS -11 -13 -16 -20 54 -05 -06 BotWid02 25 11 11 04 -06 13 -07 -10 45 11 04 -26 -00 -05 11 -11 -27 02 11 -05 -12 -38 06 LftWid03 -14 05 -23 -18 06 09 04 -09 17 -14 08 11 14 14 -00 -03 17 -16 20 -11 -03 53 -09 RitWid04 -21 -34 -03 08 -13 -04 -31 -12 -20 -44 -19 00 -24 -13 -17 61 22 -25 18 -06 04 05 -21 Indent05 -08 -15 13 12 -15 07 07 24 -29 24 03 -16 -04 -04 02 -06 14 01 -17 -03 -06 -18 -09 DistWW06 -04 -05 -10 09 04 10 13 08 -24 15 06 -23 23 18 -08 06 31 -35 13 -19 14 35 -32 SpanWd07 -22 -05 16 06 -24 -06 26 05 -41 -09 -18 14 -08 -15 -12 25 42 -14 -13 07 -05 25 -07 DistLL08 -18 -07 -06 04 -14 -16 12 09 -40 -24 -10 29 -21 -19 -14 06 36 -11 -21 13 05 14 10 InclnL09 -01 09 -06 -04 11 07 -07 -37 10 12 26 05 -15 05 21 -15 -26 26 -15 08 -08 07 -08 SpanlnlO -08 -04 17 -13 -16 -00 08 49 16 01 -14 -11 -04 -12 -16 06 08 04 -09 -07 -07 15 -04 LoopiTll -14 09 -09 31 24 -26 -18 -13 25 -38 01 -01 -27 10 -25 06 14 -14 04 01 14 -56 71 LoopUZl2 -24 09 -08 37 -11 -05 -32 -28 13 -13 01 -24 -06 19 -38 19 22 -34 13 -23 40 -22 38 LoopLZ13 02 11 08 04 01 -60 -07 06 10 -19 -56 27 -17 -43 05 00 07 -03 -12 07 -29 -23 03 LoopMZ14 -08 06 -09 25 33 -22 -10 -06 24 -39 08 04 -28 12 -17 00 08 -04 03 09 06 -58 72 LoopShl5 -01 23 -14 -00 15 -04 -23 33 06 26 26 -03 28 04 -12 -30 -19 -14 14 -16 49 -40 27 Baloopl6 01 -11 15 -19 -11 06 -09 68 -01 05 00 -11 -02 -18 -08 -09 -00 08 04 08 01 -11 -17 Tiestrl7 -02 06 05 08 -15 -03 -13 30 15 -26 -02 -13 -31 -16 -15 -08 11 14 -17 11 -10 -13 30 Figur818 -04 -00 -22 32 -27 -43 00 -18 -06 09 -40 09 -17 -15 01 -16 29 -18 -15 10 05 03 24 PLoopLl9 -05 24 06 12 -07 -17 03 -19 21 -20 -27 03 -14 -14 -13 -05 15 -13 -22 -22 01 -05 08 PStemH20 -11 50 10 -15 -14 -16 -13 -11 -02 -19 -27 14 27 -24 -11 13 -04 06 -11 -03 10 -08 -13 NoLead21 06 -15 -07 -03 48 -03 -17 54 -08 13 08 -14 23 37 -09 -09 -15 19 -25 08 -07 -02 -08 HookIn22 -10 -09 -20 10 -20 03 04 -11 -32 12 -01 17 27 02 03 -09 14 -11 13 -14 05 32 -19 HookFn23 31 -17 -09 -10 -25 -10 46 04 -07 14 01 29 30 -17 48 -09 02 -05 15 -04 -19 36 -25 ^Data for "Greek-style formations"; its number was subsequently changed to Variable #47. cData for "Stroke formation, Top-shape"; its number v.as subsequently changed to Variable #46. APPENDIX H— Continued Variable 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 TopWidOl 07 08 03 -21 -04 12 -28 07 15 -12 19 -21 -19 06 08 -13 -29 03 -28 11 -23 -29 -28 BotWid02 -20 05 -08 13 11 25 -15 -25 08 -08 03 -00 -01 -56 09 -68 -57 -64 -66 15 -57 -07 -52 LftWid03 -04 -11 21 -06 -06 26 04 -01 -08 -18 -17 23 07 -05 25 06 04 09 03 -11 17 -10 -07 RitWid04 -33 25 19 33 -17 15 08 54 19 -25 -07 17 29 -19 -16 -19 -12 16 00 08 -07 02 -14 Indent05 09 -24 -02 -25 -11 -24 -09 -06 06 25 15 -23 -39 29 -30 14 26 -06 10 -10 -02 -02 17 DistWW06 -01 -22 10 -27 03 -03 -05 -23 06 13 -03 -02 -11 -01 26 16 -14 -10 -17 03 -01 28 -19 SpanM07 -03 25 04 16 -10 -25 -08 13 -01 34 -24 10 03 33 -16 65 35 37 51 22 44 24 54 DistLL08 -02 03 -06 07 -10 -26 14 10 -15 14 -04 02 17 23 08 45 41 50 57 03 51 22 36 InclnL09 04 11 08 -15 03 -07 03 09 -05 -20 13 -08 -11 14 -13 -07 27 -06 07 -21 16 -24 22 SpanlnlO 20 -05 10 08 -20 37 -12 -17 -09 10 -09 09 15 00 -12 18 07 08 13 15 16 03 06 LoopiTll -44 19 -18 35 06 08 25 23 -16 07 -30 27 35 -17 52 -15 -28 04 -05 12 -10 -04 -21 LoopUZ12 -70 43 -07 25 -06 14 05 15 -27 -04 -44 42 33 -23 41 -07 -46 -00 -18 35 -25 -11 -34 LoopLZl3 -10 -07 -10 21 02 03 22 -16 -04 -07 -22 25 10 -15 20 -19 04 12 21 -10 26 -11 -14 LoopMZl4 -27 09 -19 31 09 03 25 25 -10 10 -18 14 30 -10 46 -14 -18 03 -03 03 -06 00 -12 LoopShl5 09 -40 -16 -24 -02 12 08 -41 08 -03 01 -01 -34 15 34 -08 -28 -17 -32 -26 -52 -08 -28 Baloopl6 19 -29 -07 -19 -23 23 04 -25 16 -11 06 -04 -10 16 -17 -02 11 -09 01 -14 -12 18 -13 Tiestrl7 -02 -06 -18 10 -07 16 20 06 -22 -09 -18 23 38 09 04 02 11 16 27 03 19 -06 03 Figur818 -39 30 -20 13 06 -03 16 -06 -23 -04 -30 32 20 03 22 09 -01 14 14 -02 25 -14 -04 PLoopLl9 -02 -09 02 03 06 13 29 -13 -20 05 -05 04 21 -13 34 -05 00 01 15 03 30 20 -16 PStemHt20 -01 28 51 17 -14 -09 -10 -01 -10 -12 -19 25 04 -00 -19 38 06 50 29 31 32 -06 24 NoLead21 23 -21 -06 -24 -04 -10 -10 10 01 -06 26 -28 -20 22 -11 -11 01 -16 -13 -27 -12 -21 -10 HookIn22 10 -09 18 -14 -11 -35 -07 03 -15 -12 01 07 -40 35 -28 36 28 28 17 -23 03 -24 24 HookFn23 34 -23 02 -19 19 -28 -14 -11 15 -08 06 -01 -33 18 -27 25 39 29 23 -23 29 -24 22 i —1 U l APPENDIX H— Continued Variable 73A 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 A B C D E F G H I J 0 Q2 23 Q4 TopWidOl -27 -28 -18 -38 45 39 38 04 36 11 15 -17 12 14 09 24 -28 -23 -06 -37 03 -14 BotWid02 -06 -66 -13 01 24 20 15 17 -16 20 -03 16 -01 06 05 -03 -05 18 12 30 12 10 LftWid03 -03 08 -04 -11 -03 -04 -05 -14 23 -17 11 -05 24 28 -40 08 -20 -15 06 -24 35 -00 RitWid04 -09 -02 -15 -24 -00 -12 -05 -25 08 10 12 -01 -20 03 14 15 -22 -07 11 09 -12 01 Indent05 -02 06 38 26 -03 14 10 31 -18 -14 05 -30 -15 -38 35 16 11 08 -25 29 30 -10 DistWW06 04 -12 -05 05 06 09 02 13 -07 -20 -36 37 -23 08 -30 -37 09 24 35 07 -47 39 SpanWd07 22 51 -07 28 -20 -30 -20 -03 -13 -13 -11 05 -05 -17 11 -17 11 12 -00 -08 -06 00 DistLL08 27 58 -02 04 -38 -45 -34 -33 -03 -11 -19 06 -07 -22 05 -19 15 03 -08 04 04 -00 InclnL09 -06 10 34 16 -18 04 -12 14 11 -07 -05 -02 15 30 -17 15 -36 -37 02 -38 -17 12 SpanlnlO 13 15 -05 05 -13 -14 -13 -07 10 -19 08 -19 -02 -06 -02 08 28 13 -10 10 03 -26 LoopiTll -14 -07 -37 -19 14 -06 05 -24 01 22 -18 12 18 02 17 -18 14 -14 08 15 05 -00 LoopUZ12 -24 -21 -55 -24 34 -01 19 -19 08 28 -10 05 01 -05 30 -08 12 -10 14 07 10 -02 LoopLZl3 26 24 -24 03 -22 -35 -29 -29 02 23 -08 14 -28 -29 08 -04 16 02 -10 31 04 02 LoopMZl4 -11 -04 -22 -15 08 -02 03 -18 -03 14 -18 11 25 08 08 -19 10 -15 07 11 02 01 LoopShlS -07 -40 01 -19 52 51 62 26 03 46 05 -10 05 13 06 11 01 -11 -08 10 -01 06 Baloopl6 13 -03 24 13 -05 09 09 20 -09 -12 -07 -05 -24 09 01 07 26 -06 02 12 -02 02 Tiestrl7 04 25 -12 03 -11 -18 -11 -16 09 -20 17 -13 08 11 26 22 16 -12 -20 01 02 -35 Figur818 19 19 -27 -04 02 -13 -07 -16 03 01 -09 01 -22 -35 33 -14 19 -03 -10 09 23 01 PLoopLl9 01 21 -26 22 -23 -33 -33 -14 07 04 -29 24 -13 03 05 -19 13 08 13 14 -17 13 PStemH20 02 31 -31 -21 -15 -36 -24 -40 02 09 04 04 05 -05 -09 03 -03 -19 -10 -05 00 -13 NoLead21 -16 -13 25 -01 13 40 23 31 -00 -24 13 -23 13 -05 02 14 13 -19 -20 05 13 -23 HookIn22 12 13 33 -06 00 14 14 09 01 -14 29 -23 -05 03 07 18 -21 -26 -25 -17 12 -00 HookFn23 31 26 31 -07 -23 -09 -14 -11 20 -20 20 -17 -06 10 -18 07 -09 -13 -07 -30 -04 04 176 APPENDIX H— Continued Variable 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 45 46b 47° 48 49 FlInUZ24 -10 -09 -08 -11 -02 43 26 26 10 -03 -23 27 -14 83 -03 -17 03 -21 -05 -20 12 -22 IniAng25 -10 15 -05 18 02 -19 ■ -13 21 03 -05 -04 21 15 -18 -09 -10 -01 -16 -07 05 -20 • -03 StInML26 -09 15 -16 -20 07 25 -17 24 -16 -34 -08 -02 -18 -13 33 -03 26 22 -10 -36 -19 -11 InLoop27 -08 -05 -16 -01 -14 -18 -13 -08 08 06 -31 -11 27 -14 13 19 -20 -09 -11 -04 -24 27 DesLoo28 -11 18 -20 -01 -18 -21 -00 -03 04 21 -01 12 56 -11 -10 -16 12 03 06 09 -18 11 DUnloo29 -02 02 07 -14 -18 03 -08 00 -05 53 -32 06 35 -08 -06 -11 10 09 -06 09 05 -08 HairPn30 43 -19 25 -18 -21 03 -02 07 -01 -17 10 19 -07 44 -07 21 -16 07 -11 -30 22 08 UnlooA31 26 -13 -17 -13 -00 -08 -02 -11 12 06 -27 26 -08 06 -05 07 -19 -16 07 08 08 -20 LapLin32 26 21 24 -08 -03 00 07 -11 -07 -16 -20 -07 -09 17 -09 -14 13 -01 -12 -14 -11 17 Readlt33 10 03 -16 08 04 -05 -01 12 -07 09 -19 32 20 12 -48 -45 20 -22 04 13 06 -28 Discon36 -03 -05 -34 06 21 53 -17 06 -16 09 -18 14 45 -06 -15 -11 01 09 10 37 -01 25 Pressr37 -23 -04 -08 -31 -01 -32 10 -27 -20 -19 -18 -20 -41 03 -20 04 06 -06 36 -12 06 14 EndBln38 27 21 -02 -11 12 06 19 26 -07 32 14 -20 33 15 -07 -04 -17 03 -24 23 13 -21 EndStr39 -14 15 -18 27 56 35 -07 -08 -09 20 45 -41 33 -23 -08 03 -07 06 -10 21 05 11 HiFins41 83 -18 -13 -14 -11 -08 44 06 17 12 -06 03 15 -23 -06 -14 10 -20 .11 -36 18 -22 FinBak42 -03 -09 33 13 -10 -06 -07 -05 -09 -48 -15 -20 -08 -08 -06 29 -18 14 -04 -07 03 -15 RTaper43 -17 -10 -03 19 -16 -11 21 07 -14 -45 -11 04 -04 03 -14 29 -71 09 -22 01 34 18 LTaper44 03 -01 26 -20 12 10 -16 -19 13 20 01 06 -17 -07 10 -19 -71 -00 37 -33 -21 -08 TrasAw45 -21 -16 22 -09 03 09 07 -16 -00 -22 09 -06 03 06 -20 14 09 -00 -12 03 01 11 Greeks46“ -05 -07 -10 -11 06 -06 -11 -07 -12 04 10 36 -24 -10 11 -04 -22 37 -12 -28 -14 13 TopShp47c -20 05 -37 -04 09 09 -30 08 -14 13 37 -12 23 21 -36 -07 01 -33 03 -28 05 14 OpenOs48 12 -20 -19 -24 -18 05 22 08 -11 06 -01 06 13 05 18 03 34 -21 01 -14 05 -41 KlenOs49 -22 -03 -11 27 11 -08 08 -20 17 -28 25 14 -21 11 -22 -15 18 -08 11 13 14 -41 ^Data for "Greek-style formations"; its number was subsequently changed to Variable #47. cData for "Stroke formation, Top-shape"; its number was subsequently changed to Variable #46. APPENDIX H— Continued Variable 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 FlInUZ24 20 -25 -07 -09 84 -12 -09 -14 44 -04 25 -22 -06 -14 -10 -08 -03 -09 -11 -12 09 -03 -01 IniAng25 13 -07 34 -05 -04 11 -04 -28 -32 -10 -02 08 -07 10 15 -01 -05 -02 01 06 -06 -05 03 StInML26 08 10 21 27 -25 02 -18 09 01 27 -29 20 10 -02 -38 02 14 -10 23 35 16 09 11 InLoop27 -31 26 -35 10 07 -18 -02 01 -15 -09 -20 24 06 -14 21 -20 -26 -12 -23 11 -13 -24 -24 DesLoo28 22 -28 01 -25 02 -07 09 18 -07 -04 27 -28 -09 24 27 -15 -01 -03 -17 -32 -15 -09 -15 DUnloo29 -01 -20 11 -21 -02 -04 -06 -11 02 -02 11 -10 -01 03 04 05 -06 -24 -16 09 -15 38 -00 HairPn30 32 -20 -06 06 37 -26 -02 -09 15 67 -07 -21 -15 -03 -10 32 21 -10 16 05 27 29 24 UnlooA31 15 -28 01 -22 06 10 -12 -21 29 -01 09 -13 -21 04 -05 -02 -12 -12 -19 -16 -19 -07 -16 LapLin32 -05 11 03 22 23 59 01 -11 -02 -01 -04 08 29 -40 13 -22 -22 -18 -17 23 02 -09 -17 Readlt33 31 -21 -10 -63 09 -07 -24 -61 -11 11 30 -36 -58 34 -08 11 05 -23 -17 -34 -13 -30 -05 Discon36 01 -33 -14 -37 -02 -08 -14 -01 08 -15 25 -17 -13 02 29 -14 -15 -20 -35 -13 -36 -05 -09 Pressr37 21 04 -23 27 -21 -15 24 03 -13 -02 11 -05 -11 11 -10 20 42 35 44 -22 26 10 47 EndBln38 14 -41 37 -45 16 -26 -51 -32 19 12 01 -09 -61 17 12 07 -21 -15 -32 -10 -22 -25 -26 EndStr39 02 -22 08 -45 03 -09 -03 08 -22 05 09 -13 -11 24 34 -05 -17 -27 -31 -14 -21 01 -28 HiFins41 27 -25 -14 -15 79 -23 -01 -12 39 -07 20 -16 -14 01 -20 04 22 08 11 -17 27 -17 22 FiriBak42 -33 37 31 46 01 10 -39 60 42 -04 -20 22 41 -25 -11 -09 -17 16 05 54 08 -02 01 RTaper43 -42 07 -16 23 -03 09 06 35 -00 15 -33 26 25 -15 25 02 -15 -04 -02 28 02 17 -12 LTaper44 33 -04 05 -09 -11 -05 -04 -07 -03 -17 11 -00 05 30 -40 11 45 24 36 -16 34 -02 36 TrasAw45 Greeks4^3 -14 -15 15 08 -31 07 06 22 28 -02 -36 35 10 -08 09 -11 -11 -04 -18 -03 -26 15 -22 08 05 -32 12 -15 -10 -04 -02 -11 -05 20 -16 12 04 -16 06 27 15 26 -16 06 -09 37 TopShp47c -11 -01 16 -26 -17 19 -06 -01 09 -06 22 -23 -11 06 42 07 -31 06 -30 03 -33 04 -28 OpenOs48 11 -07 11 -22 10 18 -01 12 13 -10 12 -08 06 06 -03 14 20 06 12 -09 27 09 12 KlenOs49 -25 11 -40 37 -06 03 18 07 -26 34 -35 21 23 -22 48 -04 -27 -13 -13 23 -25 02 -03 ^Data for "Greek-style formations"; its number was subsequently changed to Variable #47. h cData for "Stroke formation, Top-shape"; its number was subsequently changed to Variable #46. 03 APPENDIX H— Continued Variable 73A 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 A B C D E F G H I J 0 Q2 Q3 q4 FlInUZ24 23 -05 01 -04 -11 -04 -15 -04 -03 -17 -04 04 -00 19 -0.8 -02 05 01 10 -15 ■ -27 21 IniAng25 -29 -01 -07 09 05 -01 06 09 11 34 02 17 09 -05 04 11 01 06 -03 04 11 02 StInML26 -24 22 -08 49 -23 -32 -26 11 -02 25 19 -09 -24 -05 05 10 15 16 -07 07 12 -34 InLoop27 -22 -21 -23 -16 17 11 06 -03 -27 11 -26 15 -16 -17 25 -28 -04 06 25 29 05 10 DesLoo28 -40 -17 28 -23 13 40 23 16 20 -07 -11 07 15 02 -37 -03 -01 -17 05 -17 -10 03 DUnloo29 -22 -16 10 18 15 20 15 32 -11 -23 -12 11 13 40 -19 -15 07 23 33 -04 -29 09 HairPn30 14 20 ‘ 08 46 -27 -23 -26 12 -00 -28 -02 -11 -04 03 -13 -30 24 36 06 -09 -16 05 UnlooA31 17 -20 11 -10 13 25 22 14 -21 -19 09 -21 12 -01 05 19 08 -10 -19 18 -11 -11 LapLin32 -01 -11 -29 -01 -09 -20 -25 -20 06 02 15 -12 35 16 10 17 07 -08 -12 -04 14 -19 Readlt33 06 -16 31 14 22 45 33 45 07 -05 -03 -14 -20 -30 -01 02 11 08 -10 -07 21 14 Discon36 -24 -37 25 -23 31 44 37 19 09 -04 -15 10 35 49 -31 -05 -31 -16 22 -13 -31 14 Pressr37 53 40 16 07 -30 -33 -22 -23 13 30 04 06 -04 -11 02 -11 -09 01 -18 02 30 12 EndBln38 -23 -30 03 -08 39 47 43 34 07 01 05 -15 13 12 -30 02 -06 -21 -09 17 -11 -00 EndStr39 -68 -29 13 -04 35 54 38 40 16 -23 -23 08 05 08 -22 -26 20 07 35 -10 -19 12 HiPins41 31 17 11 -04 -16 -10 -18 -11 10 -20 09 -11 01 12 -08 10 03 -00 -02 -26 -20 07 FinBak42 -23 06 -38 -16 -01 -26 -18 -28 12 19 04 14 -00 03 06 13 -14 01 20 -02 -12 -13 RTaper43 -06 -01 -28 06 11 -12 03 -04 -02 -07 05 -06 13 -18 39 -03 06 14 -04 27 07 -14 LTaper44 02 37 29 10 -32 -11 -28 -02 02 -13 -03 05 -07 02 -32 08 09 -19 -04 -25 05 -07 TrasAw45, Greeks46?: ) -28 -21 09 -14 13 15 17 00 -17 15 23 09 01 23 -32 07 -25 -11 06 -07 -20 -03 19 21 20 05 -26 -21 -18 -16 17 -01 08 05 -06 02 -05 -01 -02 -08 -11 -07 26 02 TopShp47c -13 -32 -08 -43 41 37 43 -01 19 17 -13 -01 12 26 01 03 -17 -26 03 -26 -04 13 OpenOs48 -25 17 11 06 -15 -08 -14 -02 -26 13 -04 11 07 -05 17 -17 -02 -08 -27 -14 02 13 KlenOs49 -11 -18 -30 -03 25 02 18 -07 -03 19 -09 -03 33 19 08 -22 06 -01 -01 10 06 -15 ^Data for "Greek-style formations"; its number was subsequently changed to Variable #47. cData for "Stroke formation, Top-shape"; its number was subsequently changed to Variable #46. APPENDIX H— Continued Variable 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 TraceD50 -46 06 -43 10 -14 21 -28 -07 16 49 -52 -35 34 -37 31 47 15 28 -31 22 13 36 TBarHt51 -46 03 61 -13 22 -07 39 -09 -05 -29 28 43 -30 -21 -00 -21 14 07 56 10 -07 11 TBarWt52 06 03 -07 -12 10 -31 09 19 -03 -03 05 -16 08 -10 10 -00 17 02 15 11 -00 00 TBarLg53 -43 61 -07 -10 20 -01 36 05 12 -43 41 51 -48 -04 -08 -18 09 10 46 03 13 20 BarCup54 10 -13 -12 -10 -12 04 -05 30 04 20 -20 -01 -07 10 02 -11 -07 -09 -01 12 02 03 BarCap55 -14 22 10 20 -12 02 04 09 -16 -02 11 46 -37 17 -31 -37 -19 -28 30 -15 16 -28 TBarTT56 21 -07 -31 -01 04 02 09 -37 -11 02 04 29 08 -03 16 25 17 30 -31 16 36 14 IceDot57 -28 39 09 36 -05 04 09 21 -14 -07 11 52 01 -22 01 10 33 22 20 20 03 15 TBarLf59 -07 -09 19 05 30 09 -37 21 -14 13 -09 -07 -18 -01 -18 -13 01 -23 06 -02 08 -10 OiDots60 16 -05 -03 12 04 -16 -11 -14 -14 -19 -25 -19 00 05 38 -03 -18 07 25 -04 26 19 BonDotSl 49 -29 -03 -43 20 -02 02 -07 13 -19 -88 -22 08 -11 -04 21 -01 -05 -36 01 11 07 JabDot62 -52 28 05 41 -20 11 04 11 -09 -25 -88 32 -11 08 -11 -16 11 04 26 05 -19 -09 Cactis63 -35 43 -16 51 -01 46 29 52 -07 -19 -22 32 -39 06 -13 -12 16 15 41 24 28 -01 LetWid64 34 -30 08 -48 -07 -37 08 01 -16 00 08 -11 -39 -27 56 65 39 52 -53 29 -06 43 SlantL65 -37 -21 -10 -04 10 17 -03 -22 -01 05 -11 08 06 -27 -32 -50 -33 -47 05 -32 06 -50 LetDis66 31 -00 10 -08 02 -31 16 01 -18 38 -04 -11 -13 56 -32 58 62 70 -06 53 17 72 MZonHt67 47 -21 -00 -18 -11 -37 25 10 -13 -03 21 -18 -12 65 -50 58 60 86 -46 71 02 75 Captal68 15 14 17 09 -07 -19 17 33 01 -18 -01 11 16 39 -33 62 60 76 -05 66 -07 58 UZonHt69 28 07 02 10 -09 -28 30 22 -23 07 -05 04 15 52 -47 70 86 76 -13 80 07 79 DTHite70 -31 56 15 46 -00 30 -31 20 06 25 -36 26 41 -53 05 -06 -46 -05 -13 -03 12 -10 LZonHt71 22 1G 11 03 12 -15 16 20 -02 -04 01 05 24 29 -32 53 72 66 80 -03 08 58 Ananal72 13 -07 -00 13 02 16 36 03 08 26 11 -19 28 -06 06 17 02 -07 07 12 08 09 FinLng73 36 11 00 20 03 -28 14 15 -10 19 07 -09 -01 43 -50 72 75 58 79 -10 58 09 f -1 CO o APPENDIX H— Continued Variable 73A 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 A B C D E F G H I J 0 Q2 Q3; Q4 TraceD50 05 28 46 18 -32 -03 -15 10 17 -18 07 -10 -18 12 -23 -01 15 20 -05 -25 -07 02 TBarHt51 10 09 -51 -09 -03 -34 -22 -34 -15 13 -02 04 05 -20 32 -06 -10 02 08 -00 25 -13 TBarWt52 -21 05 02 -10 -06 -00 -05 -05 -02 -01 -00 09 09 12 -36 14 -16 -18 02 -18 -24 04 TBarLg53 24 08 -46 02 -18 -51 -35 -40 -18 34 03 16 10 -00 20 -11 -11 08 03 22 09 -04 BarCup54 17 -02 -18 -04 08 01 -03 -01 -02 -15 -15 11 13 06 02 -14 14 20 23 -11 -27 24 BarCap55 -01 -25 -35 -15 13 -05 -03 -16 11 09 01 09 22 02 13 17 -00 11 07 08 07 -05 TBarTT56 03 27 09 06 -27 -24 -19 -17 -09 -09 02 -02 -22 04 19 -12 24 17 05 08 -09 04 IceDot57 -29 22 -07 -22 -11 -17 -16 -29 17 -11 22 -09 19 04 16 24 -21 -25 00 -24 01 -24 TBarLf59 13 -17 -03 -30 14 16 05 -07 -17 09 -03 17 13 15 -24 08 -34 -11 17 -12 -28 19 OiDots60 -03 03 -09 51 -01 -09 02 23 -07 -12 -02 -21 08 -17 -02 -26 30 40 -10 08 03 -10 PonDot61 13 -03 50 -06 -25 08 -11 06 13 -12 -12 09 -01 03 -07 01 -13 00 01 -10 22 30 JabDot62 -06 05 -46 -16 20 -10 03 -21 -11 22 08 08 -04 02 06 05 02 -11 06 15 -22 -20 Cactis63 -14 18 -45 -14 -24 -50 -44 -50 14 -08 -03 18 06 09 16 00 14 09 19 -00 -07 -20 LetWid64 -09 47 54 20 00 31 26 40 23 -23 13 -26 -13 -12 00 21 18 -27 -19 -45 03 -01 SlantL65 -09 -44 -31 -23 42 28 31 03 01 23 -38 36 25 18 -18 -32 01 06 23 14 -20 27 LetDis66 18 67 12 20 -27 -26 -19 -08 14 -31 13 -28 00 -09 06 -03 31 -02 -18 -32 02 -08 MZonHt67 20 86 63 28 -69 -37 -47 -10 21 -27 18 -23 -18 -13 -00 19 11 -21 -28 -36 15 -05 Captal68 21 76 03 -40 -43 -46 -41 -66 28 -18 19 -15 -03 -11 05 21 03 -32 -22 -41 06 -14 UZonHt69 23 98 20 24 -65 -62 -55 -34 25 -17 20 -22 -18 -19 16 17 23 -10 -26 -31 17 -19 DTHite70 -11 -10 -78 -06 18 -34 -13 -31 -04 10 -09 13 15 -01 16 -11 13 35 20 13 04 -30 LZonHt71 25 90 04 11 -66 -61 -73 -41 23 -35 -05 -04 -12 -23 -01 -04 28 -02 -03 -23 01 -09 Ancrnal72 06 07 -04 31 -18 -20 -20 10 -27 -13 -47 45 -12 02 -16 -55 33 56 48 22 -24 40 FinLng73 34 76 27 26 -51 -46 -42 -19 07 -06 18 -15 09 -07 11 11 04 -02 -24 -26 12 -05 M 00 ( —■ APPENDIX H— Continued Variable 73A 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 A B C D E F G H I J 0 Q2 Q3; Q4 Final73A 25 00 02 -26 -32 -28 -26 -16 02 -11 16 -03 -11 10 -15 00 08 -12 11 12 31 UZLZHt74 25 16 21 -68 -65 -64 -38 25 -24 12 -16 -17 -22 11 11 26 -08 -19 -30 12 -16 MZ2ULZ75 00 16 23 -37 23 -00 37 03 -22 12 -17 -18 06 -21 20 -20 -33 -23 -23 09 20 UZ2KTL76 02 21 23 -24 -15 -12 59 -14 -03 -06 -04 -19 -11 11 -17 28 35 -00 17 11 03 MZW2Ht77 -26 -68 -37 -24 78 91 44 -02 22 01 -02 21 08 0* 02 -05 08 13 07 -12 -06 UZW2Ht78 -32 -65 23 -15 78 89 69 -02 OC -02 -06 12 13 -16 05 -12 -14 08 -07 -16 12 LZW2Ht79 -28 -64 -00 -12 91 89 61 -01 19 12 -15 15 11 02 14 -12 -07 -03 -03 -07 -03 CPW2Ht80 -26 -38 37 59 44 69 61 -13 -01 -10 -05 -06 02 -06 -09 11 13 09 08 -05 14 Factor A -16 25 03 -14 -02 -02 -01 -13 -13 19 -20 -16 12 03 26 23 -15 -04 -50 04 -18 Factor B 02 -24 -22 -03 22 00 19 -01 -13 01 24 -06 -01 13 03 -35 02 -02 30 21 11 Factor C -11 12 12 -06 01 -02 12 -10 19 01 -73 27 -00 39 89 -30 -36 -78 -28 35 -73 Factor D 16 -16 -17 -04 -02 -06 -15 -05 -20 24 -74 -26 10 -39 -74 04 45 77 27 -35 76 Factor E -03 -17 -12 -19 21 12 15 -06 -16 -06 27 -26 18 01 39 -39 -39 -38 -11 07 -32 Factor F -11 -22 06 -11 08 13 11 02 12 -01 -00 10 18 -46 02 -32 -40 22 -50 -67 08 Factor G 10 11 -21 11 06 -16 02 -06 03 13 39 -39 01 -46 38 17 10 -42 24 69 -37 Factor H -15 11 20 -17 02 05 14 -09 26 03 89 -74 39 02 38 -42 -65 -82 -39 34 -69 Factor I 00 26 -20 28 -05 -12 -12 11 23 -35 -30 04 -39 -32 17 -42 54 26 19 07 -01 Factor J 08 -08 -33 35 08 -14 -07 13 -15 02 -36 45 -39 -40 10 -65 54 58 54 -04 25 Factor 0 -12 -19 -23 -00 13 08 -03 09 -r> 4 -02 -78 77 -38 22 -42 -82 26 58 13 -58 67 Factor Q2 Factor Q3 11 -30 -23 17 07 -07 -03 08 -50 30 -28 27 -11 -50 24 -39 19 54 13 24 13 12 12 09 11 -11 -16 -07 -05 04 21 35 -35 07 -67 69 34 07 -04 -58 24 -35 Factor Q4 31 -16 20 03 -06 12 -03 14 -18 11 -73 76 -32 03 -37 -69 -01 25 67 13 -35 co ro APPENDIX I DISTRIBUTION AND VARIABILITY STATISTICS (COMBINED SCORES) FOR 78 HANDWRITING VARIABLES 183 APPENDIX I DISTRIBUTION AND VARIABILITY STATISTICS (COMBINED SCORES) FOR 78 HANDWRITING VARIABLES (N = 80)a Variable Mean Std. Error Std. Dev. Variance Kurtosis Skewness Range Max. Min. TopWidOl 33.6 1.06 13.3 178.1 0.1 0.0 73.0 73.0 0.0 BotWid02 95.1 3.79 48.0 2299.4 - 0.7 -0.2 191.0 191.0 0.0 LftWid03 29.3 1.19 15.0 224.7 0.4 0.5 81.0 81.0 0.0 RitWid04 27.6 1.09 13.7 188.3 0.0 0.4 76.8 '76.8 0.0 Indent05 9.4 1.00 12.7 161.2 3.0 1.7 64.0 64.0 0.0 DistMW06 3.7 0.15 2.0 3.8 2.3 0.3 15.3 11.0 -4.3 SpanVJd07 6.4 0.21 2.7 7.1 - 0.5 0.1 12.0 12.0 0.0 DistLLOS 10.5 0.25 3.1 9.7 4.0 0.2 25.5 25.5 0.0 InclnL09 - 1.9 0.25 3.2 10.2 0.8 -0.4 19.6 5.2 -14.4 SpanlnlO 5.1 0.24 3.0 8.9 2.1 1.3 17.5 17.5 0.0 LoopiTll 83.9 1.60 20.2 407.8 4.1 -1.1 126.0 126.0 0.0 LoopUZl2 59.8 1.52 19.2 368.3 0.6 -0.8 95.0 95.0 0.0 LoopLZ13 69.3 1.33 16.8 281.8 4.4 ' -1.4 100.0 100.0 0.0 LoopMZ14 92.2 1.98 25.1 629.8 2.4 -0.5 152.0 152.0 0.0 IoopShl5 1.7 0.02 0.3 0.1 25.6 -4.4 2.2 2.2 0.0 Baloopl6 4.7 1.03 13.0 170.1 19.7 4.3 83.0 83.0 0.0 TieStrl7 0.3 0.04 0.5 0.2 2.3 1.8 2.0 2.0 0.0 Figur818 2.2 0.08 1.0 1.1 0.6 0.1 6.0 6.0 0.0 PLoopLl9 31.0 2.59 32.8 1073.0 - 0.2 1.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 PStemH20 11.8 1.65 20.9 435.6 4.8 2.2 100.0 100.0 0.0 H1 ^here were 77 paired script specimens, and 3 single ones for a total of 157 specimens. APPENDIX I--Continued Variable Mean Std. Error Std. Dev. Variance Kurtosis Skewness Range Max. Min, NoLead21 2.0 0.31 3.9 15.5 3.6 2.1 18.0 18.0 0.0 HookIn22 5.4 0.36 4.5 20.6 2.5 1.3 25.0 25.0 0.0 HookFn23 6.9 0.64 8.1 65.2 4.2 1.8 49.0 49.0 0.0 FlInUZ24 1.2 0.54 6.8 46.4 33.9 5.9 50.0 50.0 0.0 IniAng25 3.8 0.54 6.8 46.8 6.4 2.4 36.0 36.0 0.0 StInML26 12.0 1.07 13.5 181.5 0.5 1.1 51.0 51.0 0.0 InLoop27 0.31 0.06 0.7 0.5 7.7 2.8 4.0 4.0 0.0 DesLoo28 2.9 0.52 6.5 42.6 20.9 4.1 50.0 50.0 0.0 DUnloo29 2.1 0.50 6.3 40.2 27.6 5.0 46.0 46.0 0.0 HairPn30 0.6 0.11 1.4 1.9 8.8 2.9 8.0 8.0 0.0 UnlooA31 1.0 0.21 2.6 6.9 11.0 3.3 15.0 15.0 0.0 LapLin32 40.9 4.9 62.1 3857.9 12.0 3.1 383.0 383.0 0.0 Readlt33 97.6 1.08 13.6 184.8 47.5 -7.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 Discon36 2.9 0.43 5.4 29.0 12.9 3.4 35.0 35.0 0.0 Pressr37 2.7 0.11 1.4 1.9 - 0.1 -0.4 6.0 6.0 0.0 EndBln38 36.3 1.60 20.2 409.9 - 0.3 0.3 96.0 96.0 0.0 EndStr39 5.5 0.51 6.4 41.2 1.0 1.3 27.0 27.0 0.0 HiFins41 2.2 0.33 4.1 17.2 7.1 2.6 22.0 22.0 0.0 FinBak42 0.3 0.08 1.0 1.1 27.4 5.1 7.0 7.0 0.0 PTaper43 26.5 1.28 16.2 263.0 0.3 0.7 84.0 84.0 0.0 185 APPENDIX I— Continued Variable Mean Std. Error Std. Dev. Variance Kurtosis Skewness Range Max. Min. LTaper44 20.1 1.06 13.3 178.1 0.3 0.8 63.0 63.0 0.0 TrasAw45 2.1 0.04 0.5 0.2 7.6 -0.9 4.1 4.1 0.0 Greeks46^ 0.6 0.23 2.9 8.3 33.8 5.7 21.0 21.0 0.0 TopShp47 3.5 0.05 0.7 0.4 13.2 -2.8 4.8 4.8 0.0 OpenOs48 17.3 1.25 15.8 249.8 3.8 1.8 89.0 89.0 0.0 KlenOs49 2.0 0.06 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.6 4.7 4.7 0.0 TraceD50 1.6 0.03 0.3 0.1 7.9 -2.1 2.1 2.1 0.0 TBarHtSl 1.8 0.04 0.5 0.2 2.8 -0.9 2.7 2.7 0.0 TBarWt52 2.0 0.03 0.4 0.2 9.2 -2.1 2.9 2.9 0.0 TBarLg53 0.5 0.04 0.4 0.2 -0.4 0.7 1.3 1.8 0.0 BarCup54 10.3 1.04 13.1 172.7 17.4 3.5 96.0 96.0 0.0 BarCap55 4.8 0.51 6.4 41.5 7.8 2.2 43.0 43.0 0.0 TBarTT56 0.0 0.01 0.1 0.0 3.8 0.6 0.8 0.4 -0.4 IceDot57 1.6 0.02 0.3 0.1 15.4 -2.4 2.6 2.6 0.0 TBarRt58 0.2 0.10 1.2 1.5 52.4 7.3 10.0 10.0 0.0 TBarLf59 2.1 0.18 2.3 5.3 0.4 1.1 9.0 9.0 0.0 OiDots60 2.1 0.83 10.5 111.0 51.6 6.9 93.0 93.0 0.0 PonDot61 32.8 1.97 24.9 619.5 - 0.6 0.5 100.0 100.0 0.0 JabDot62 63.5 2.07 26.2 688.2 - 0.6 -0.5 100.0 100.0 0.0 Cactis63 22.4 1.62 20.5 421.1 0.9 1.2 84.0 84.0 0.0 APPENDIX I— Continued Variable Mean Std. Error Std. Dev. Variance Kurtosis Skewness Range Max. Min. LetWid64 3.0 0.07 0.9 0.7 1.9 -0.2 5.5 5.5 0.0 SlantL65 2.9 0.08 1.1 1.1 - 0.2 -0.0 5.3 5.3 0.0 LetDis66 2.7 0.08 1.0 0.9 3.1 0.9 6.6 6.6 0.0 MZonHt67 4.8 0.13 1.7 2.9 1.5 0.4 10.6 10.6 0.0 Captal68 9.2 0.27 3.4 11.4 2.5 0.9 21.0 21.0 0.0 UZonHt69 8.4 0.22 2.8 7.7 2.3 0.5 19.2 19.2 0.0 DTHite70 1.2 0.03 0.4 0.1 4.1 0.9 2.7 2.7 0.0 LZonHt71 4.5 0.14 1.8 3.1 12.9 2.1 16.4 16.4 0.0 Anomal72 1.3 0.10 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.3 6.0 6.0 0.0 FinLng73c 3.1 0.14 1.7 3.0 1.6 1.1 9.4 9.4 0.0 UZLZHt74 12.9 0.34 4.3 18.8 5.1 0.9 35.6 35.6 0.0 MZ2ULZ75 37.1 0.66 8.3 63.7 6.1 -1.5 58.0 58.0 0.0 UZ2Ktl76 91.9 1.87 23.7 560.8 4.3 -0.3 174.0 174.0 0.0 MZW2Ht77 63.6 1.54 19.4 378.1 2.4 0.2 135.0 135.0 0.0 UZW2Ht78 36.5 0.88 11.1 124.1 0.8 -0.4 64.0 64.0 0.0 LZW2Ht79 32.7 0.78 9.9 97.1 1.1 -0.3 58.0 58.0 0.0 CFW2Ht80 33.8 0.88 11.1 123.7 0.4 -0.2 63.0 63.0 0.0 Final73AC 43.1 1.43 18.1 327.0 - 0.6 -0.5 81.0 81.0 0.0 cData for "Frequency of long Finals" was added to the study after Variable Numbers were assigned. oo APPENDIX J DISTRIBUTION AND VARIABILITY STATISTICS FOR 14 PERSONALITY VARIABLES FOR COMBINED HSPQ SCORES 188 APPENDIX J DISTRIBUTION AND VARIABILITY STATISTICS FOR 14 PERSONALITY VARIABLES FOR COMBINED HSPQ SCORES (N - 41)a Variable Mean Std. Error Std. Dev. Variance Kurtosis Skewness Range Max. Min. Factor A 6.0 0.16 1.4 1.9 - 0.4 -0.4 6.0 9.0 3.0 Factor B 6.3 0.17 1.5 2.2 - 1.0 0.4 6.0 10.0 4.0 Factor C 6.5 0.23 2.0 4.1 - 0.9 -0.1 8.0 10.0 2.0 Factor D 5.4 0.24 2.1 4.5 - 0.7 -0.2 8.0 9.0 1.0 Factor E 6.1 0.20 1.8 3.2 - 0.0 -0.4 8.0 10.0 2.0 Factor F 5.7 0.23 2.0 4.2 0.2 -0.0 9.0 10.0 1.0 Factor G 6.3 0.°3 2.0 4.2 - 0.8 -0.1 8.0 10.0 2.0 Factor H 6.3 0.25 2.2 4.7 - 0.9 -0.2 8.0 10.0 2.0 Factor I 5.7 0.24 2.1 4.5 - 0.5 -0.2 9.0 10.0 1.0 Factor J 4.8 0.24 2.1 4.5 0.2 0.5 9.0 10.0 1.0 Factor 0 4.5 0.24 2.1 4.5 - 0.9 0.2 8.0 9.0 1.0 Factor 5.2 0.22 1.9 3.7 - 0.1 -0.2 8.0 9.0 1.0 Factor Q3 5.7 0.27 2.4 5.8 - 0.7 0.2 9.0 10.0 1.0 Factor Q4 4.9 0.27 2.4 5.6 - 1.0 0.1 9.0 10.0 1.0 aSten scores have been rounded off frcsn values to the thousandths decimal place fran CONDESCRIPTIVE subroutine printout.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A Validation Study For The Feshbach And Roe (1968) Test For Empathic Ability

PDF

Application Of The Micro-Counseling Method Using Video-Tape Recordings Tothe Training Of Teachers In Basic Counseling Techniques

PDF

A Study Of The School Achievement And Adjustment Of Children From One-Parent Homes

PDF

An Empirical Analysis Of The Relationship Between Risk Taking And Personal Probability Responding On Multiple-Choice Examinations

PDF

A Study To Compare The Effectiveness Of Individual And Group Counseling Approaches With Able Underachievers When Counselor Time Is Held Constant

PDF

Policies And Procedures Relating To Pupil Marking In The Public High Schools Of California

PDF

The Laboratory Method And Behavior Change In A Religious Institution: An Exploratory Study

PDF

The Effects Of Early Educational Stimulation On Selected Characteristics Of Kindergarten Children

PDF

An exploratory study of the psychological sequelae of surgery and hospitalization in male children

PDF

Personality Variables And Intellectual Abilities As Determinants Of Concept Learning

PDF

An Analysis Of The Role Of The School Psychologist In The State Of California

PDF

Communication Between The High School Principal And The School Staff

PDF

The Relative Effectiveness Of Three Methods Of Teaching Elementary Algebra In Community Colleges When Sex And Abilities Of The Student Are Considered

PDF

Differential Effects Of Videotape Feedback On Counselor Trainee'S Self-Concept

PDF

Differences Among Junior College Transfer Students, Four-Year College Transfer Students, And Native Students In Academic Performance And Attitudes In Home Economics At A Selected California State...

PDF

Approach Teaching Of Educationally Handicapped Students In The Torrance Unified School District

PDF

Prediction Of Success In Training Among Electronics Technicians

PDF

The relationship between process and presage critera of college teaching effectiveness

PDF

A Comparison Of Implosion And Desensitization In Group Treatments Of Test Anxiety

PDF

The Influence Of Other People'S Schooling On An Individual'S Income

Asset Metadata

Creator Kimball, Thomas Dale (author)

Core Title The Systematic Isolation And Validation Of Personality Determiners In The Handwriting Of School Children

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Fox, Frank H. (committee chair), Carnes, Earl F. (committee member), Dreher, John H. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-881246

Unique identifier UC11363290

Identifier 7330020.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-881246 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7330020

Dmrecord 881246

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kimball, Thomas Dale

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA