Is graphology real? What research shows about handwriting

“Small handwriting means modesty, large handwriting means egotism”: that is how popular graphology handbooks read the size of your writing (King & Koehler, 2000). Graphology books describe reading temperament, intellect, social behaviour, attitude to work and morals from features such as the size and slant of the letters, the upper, middle and lower “zones”, and pen pressure (Furnham, 1988). So can handwriting really reveal personality? This guide answers that question with research.

The short answer is that the studies we found do not support reading personality from the shape of handwriting. In studies that had everyone write the same text and compared handwriting features with personality test scores, meaningful links were few, and no handwriting feature consistently pointed to a particular trait (Furnham, 1988; Gawda, 2014). A meta-analysis of 17 hiring studies found that judgements made from texts with personal content predicted job performance slightly, but people without graphology training did about as well, and in the few cases where everyone wrote the same text, graphologists’ predictions were close to zero (from the abstract; Neter & Ben-Shakhar, 1989). The clues, in other words, lay in what people wrote, not in the shape of their writing. Why handwriting readings feel accurate has its own explanations: illusions created by the associations of words (King & Koehler, 2000), and readings that fit almost anyone. What handwriting really does show is something else: who wrote a document, the question forensic handwriting examination answers (NIST, 2020), and changes in how the hand moves, which medicine studies (from the abstract; Letanneux et al., 2014). Supporters of graphology point to studies that back it (Chernov & Caspers, 2020), so this guide sets out both sides.

This guide covers where graphology came from and what it reads, studies that set handwriting against personality tests, what happened when it was used in hiring, why readings feel accurate, what handwriting can actually show, and how to enjoy it without taking it as fact. Why a reading that fits everyone can feel personal is in the guide to the Barnum effect, and the research on palm and face reading is in the guide to the science of palm reading and the guide to the science of face reading. mind.io does not offer a test that judges personality from your handwriting.

The name “graphology” (graphologie) was first used in 1871 by the French cleric Jean-Hippolyte Michon, who spent 30 years studying handwriting (Furnham, 1988). Japan’s Encyclopedia Nipponica traces its origins to the handwriting study in the Swiss pastor Johann Kaspar Lavater’s physiognomy work of 1775 to 1778, and says that masters such as Michon and Jules Crépieux-Jamin then appeared in France, while Ludwig Klages in Germany organised the earlier findings into a systematic theory (Kuroda, Nipponica).

East Asia had a similar custom. According to the same entry, China and Japan long had a practice called bokushoku (墨色), which looked at the individual features of writing in ink but went as far as a person’s lifelong fate, which the entry calls a leap: someone who writes the character for “one” (一) without pressing down the end of the stroke, for example, was said to die young. Japanese scholars disagreed too: the psychologist Matsumoto Matatarō denied a link between handwriting and personality, while several others, among them Kuroda, the author of the entry himself, carried on research from a supportive standpoint (Kuroda, Nipponica).

Graphology books look at features such as the size and slant of the writing, its upper, middle and lower “zones” and pen pressure, and read temperament, intellect, social behaviour, work and morals from them, with each school working a little differently (Furnham, 1988). Some give a meaning to each feature on its own, while others read the overall impression of the writing (King & Koehler, 2000). A Canadian research team took these pairings from two introductory books that bookstore customers recommended: small writing for modesty and large writing for egotism, slow writing for caution and fast writing for impulsiveness, an even rhythm for reliability, angular writing for an analytical mind and rounded writing for intuition, tightly spaced writing for introversion and widely spaced writing for extraversion, and rising lines for optimism and falling lines for pessimism (King & Koehler, 2000).

Psychologists once took graphology seriously. In a 1933 book, the eminent psychologists Gordon Allport and Philip Vernon gave it an early endorsement as a scientific discipline (Allport & Vernon, 1933, as cited in King & Koehler, 2000), and a 1945 study found that graphologists judged the personality traits of 50 patients better than chance, while non-graphologists did no better than chance (Eysenck, 1945, as cited in Gawda, 2014). Adrian Furnham, a psychologist at University College London, summed up in 1988 that a few studies had found better-than-chance links between handwriting and traits such as neuroticism, but that a large number showed no clear pattern (Furnham, 1988).

Start with studies that measured handwriting features directly and compared them with personality test scores. Furnham and Gunter had 64 adults from widely varied backgrounds copy the same text of about 100 words, on tea, with the same kind of pencil, and measured extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Two raters who were not graphologists scored 13 features that graphology books often name, such as size, slant, pressure, how the letters join, and how the i’s are dotted and the t’s crossed, and their scores agreed at a correlation of 0.89. Yet of more than 70 correlations, under 6% were statistically significant, one with extraversion and three with neuroticism, and other analyses found nothing significant. This is how Furnham himself described the study (Furnham, 1988), and King and Koehler summed up its correlations as chance-level (King & Koehler, 2000).

In two studies by Furnham and colleagues, students took a personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and intelligence tests around the start of their course, and their handwriting was analysed from exam scripts written a few months later (20 months later in the second study). Although the writing was not produced to be judged, it showed fewer associations with the Big Five traits than might be expected by chance, and its links with sex and intelligence differed between the two studies, which supported the view that chance was at work (from the abstract; Furnham et al., 2003). In another study, two graphologists rated the handwriting of 101 university students on the Big Five traits; their ratings did not match the students’ questionnaire results, and the two graphologists barely agreed with each other. A second study, in which texts about their own lives from 102 people were rated by two other graphologists and two laypeople, also found no evidence that graphology measures personality (from the abstract; Dazzi & Pedrabissi, 2009).

In Poland, Barbara Gawda had handwriting measured not by graphologists but by three forensic document examiners with more than 10 years’ experience. Everyone wrote the same dictated text with the same pen, the examiners knew neither the aim of the study nor who the writers were, and their measurements agreed almost perfectly (0.97 to 0.99). The first study, comparing 260 students with a Big Five inventory (NEO-FFI), found several small to moderate correlations, but “medium pressure” went with all five traits and “medium-sized letters” with four, so these two features could not tell the traits apart. The second, comparing 180 students with another personality questionnaire (EPQ-R), found only one significant correlation. Gawda concluded that it is impossible to judge Big Five traits from handwriting analysis (Gawda, 2014).

Dean’s analysis of more than 200 studies found only a small effect for inferring personality from handwriting and noted that including methodologically weak studies may have inflated it (Dean, 1992, as cited in King & Koehler, 2000). King and Koehler judged that even Dean’s liberal estimate of a correlation of 0.12, for texts whose content was the same for everyone, is far too small to be of practical value or to be noticed by a human judge (King & Koehler, 2000). In the studies Dean reviewed, judges agreed well on objective features such as slant (a correlation of 0.85), but graphologists’ interpretations agreed at only 0.42, and laypeople’s at 0.30 (Dean, 1992, as cited in King & Koehler, 2000). King and Koehler called this kind of agreement “shared but apparently invalid beliefs”.

There are studies on graphology’s side too. In 2020, researchers from a handwriting science institute in Zurich and a university college in Munich tested their own method, in which an expert records 544 handwriting signs and a program calculates 378 traits, on 58 people and compared it with a personality questionnaire (16PF-R). Instead of plain correlations, which they considered unsuitable, they split each scale into three zones and counted matches, and reported that agreement passed their statistical threshold on 14 of the 16 scales (Chernov & Caspers, 2020). In the other direction, a team in India reanalysed in 2026 whether handwriting features coded by graphology rules predicted scores on a personality questionnaire written for the study, with 320 to 330 people per trait. Two graphologists generally agreed when identifying the features, but no model consistently did better than simply predicting the average. The authors stressed that this does not show handwriting holds no personality information at all, and that their questionnaire was not a standard personality inventory (Thomas et al., 2026).

In short, in the studies we found, handwriting features did not consistently track personality test scores. The supporting study we found tested 58 people with its own way of comparing results. As the British Psychological Society’s guidance says, it is fair to keep open the possibility that the conclusion changes if new evidence appears (British Psychological Society, 2016).

Graphologists claim that the personality expressed in handwriting can predict future job performance (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), and hiring studies have tested this claim several times. An Israeli team asked graphologists, and a clinical psychologist with no knowledge of graphology, to rate bank employees from handwritten biographies. Both correlated with supervisors’ ratings at typically 0.2 to 0.3, and a simple model combining the information in the texts, such as education, did better than the human judges. In a second study, graphologists had to tell the profession of 40 successful professionals, out of 8 options, from scripts with the same content, and did not do significantly better than a chance model (from the abstract; Ben-Shakhar et al., 1986).

Neter and Ben-Shakhar pooled 17 such hiring studies in a meta-analysis covering 63 graphologists and 51 people without graphology training, who had judged 1,223 scripts. For texts with personal content, correlations between the judges’ predictions and job criteria ranged from 0.136 to 0.206 for all judges and from 0.153 to 0.177 for graphologists, and psychologists with no knowledge of graphology outperformed the graphologists on every dimension. In the few cases where everyone wrote the same text, graphologists’ validity was close to zero. The authors suggested that the limited validity of handwriting analysis may come from the content of the scripts (Neter & Ben-Shakhar, 1989). Graphologists hold that copied texts are not suitable for analysis; Ben-Shakhar and colleagues replied that, seen this way, handwriting would be highly sensitive, even from graphology’s own viewpoint, to conditions that have nothing to do with personality, such as whether a text was copied or the paper was lined (Ben-Shakhar et al., 1986, as cited in Furnham, 1988).

Schmidt and Hunter summarised 85 years of research on 19 hiring methods. Correlations with job performance were 0.51 for general mental ability tests, 0.54 for work sample tests, in which candidates do part of the job, and 0.51 for structured interviews, but 0.02 for graphology. When people wrote on topics of their choice, graphologists and untrained judges alike reached validities of about 0.18 to 0.20, but the authors put that down to the content rather than the handwriting, and wrote that graphology has “essentially no validity” and is “equivalent to hiring randomly” (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). The British Psychological Society’s guidance likewise cites a booklet of the society that places graphology with astrology at “zero validity” in a ranking of selection methods (British Psychological Society, 2016).

Is graphology really widely used in European hiring? The often-quoted figure that 85% of companies use it has no data behind it: the 1979 article usually given as its source offers none (Bangerter et al., 2009). Surveys of French organisations published in 1991 and 1994 gave estimates between 38% and 93%, while surveys of applicants in Italy, Greece and the Netherlands published in 2007 and 2008 found that fewer than 10% had come across graphology in selection. An analysis of job advertisements in German-language Swiss newspapers from 1950 to 2007 found that an average of 2.7% of vacancies asked for a handwritten letter, and fewer than 1% from 2000 on. Of 63 recruiters who asked for one, 22.2% said they used it to analyse the handwriting, while 77.6% used it to form a first impression of the applicant (Bangerter et al., 2009).

France sets rules for hiring methods in its Labour Code. Information requested from a candidate may only serve to assess their ability to do the job or their professional aptitudes, and must have a direct and necessary link with the job (Code du travail, art. L1221-6); candidates must be expressly told in advance which recruitment methods and techniques will be used on them, the results are confidential, and the methods must be relevant to the purpose pursued (Code du travail, art. L1221-8). The French government’s labour-law information page, updated in February 2026, explains that using astrology, graphology or numerology is prohibited unless there is a relevant justification (Code du travail numérique, 2026). Earlier, in a 1996 written answer to parliament, the labour ministry said that graphology’s predictive validity for job aptitude is, according to psychologists, close to zero (Assemblée nationale, 1996), and in a 1999 answer it said it did not plan a specific ban, in order to preserve the freedom to recruit (Assemblée nationale, 1999).

Why, then, do so many people find handwriting readings accurate? There are several explanations. First, the content speaks. A text written freely carries the writer’s style, emotional expression, fluency and grammar (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), and graphologists generally prefer spontaneous scripts that often include details of the writer’s life, and are encouraged to use any other personal information they can get (King & Koehler, 2000).

Second, handwriting carries clues that are not about personality. Laypeople can tell a writer’s sex from handwriting about 70% of the time (Ben-Shakhar et al., 1986, as cited in Furnham, 1988), and sex, social background and degree of literacy can also be guessed from handwriting to some extent. If such information overlaps with some traits, an occasional hit may come from these clues rather than from the shape of the writing itself (King & Koehler, 2000).

Third, the associations of words make links appear where there are none. A team at the University of Waterloo in Canada showed 78 students who knew nothing of graphology 40 handwriting samples, all copies of the same recipe, each paired at random with an invented personality profile said to belong to the writer. Although there was no real relationship, the students “saw” all six links that graphology books claim, in the same direction as the books, and the closer the words felt in meaning, as with “small” writing and a “modest” person, the stronger the link they reported. In a second experiment with 58 students, near-perfect links were built into the data, two pairs in the books’ direction and two against it; the students mostly picked up the real direction but saw the links that ran against the books as much weaker, and for writing speed and impulsiveness they reported the books’ direction, against the data, almost as strongly. The authors argued that such illusory correlations may help sustain belief in graphology among graphologists and their clients, though not as the only reason, and noted that no graphologists took part (King & Koehler, 2000).

Fourth, readings that fit almost anyone feel personal. When 108 students were given the same general personality description, said to come from their own handwriting, their belief in graphology grew stronger (McKelvie, 1990, as cited in King & Koehler, 2000). In the other direction, when 120 people were given five handwriting-analysis reports, one of them their own, and asked to rank them by how accurate they seemed, they picked out their own at chance level, while from five personality test (16PF) reports they picked out their own well above chance, and so did a person close to them (from the abstract; Bushnell, 1996). The guide to the Barnum effect covers this in more detail.

A reading in which many features fit together into one coherent picture is also likely to raise confidence in it (King & Koehler, 2000). These illusions appeared even in people who knew nothing of graphology, so believing a handwriting reading is no reason for blame.

None of this means handwriting tells us nothing; what it tells is just not personality. Forensic handwriting examination asks who wrote a document. A report by an expert working group convened by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) explains that examiners answer questions such as “Is the writer of the exemplars also the writer of the questioned document(s)?” and “Were the questioned documents written by only one individual?”, and because these judgements involve human perception and interpretation, it discusses ways to reduce error. The same report left out graphology, the analysis of handwriting to infer a person’s character, as “considered a pseudoscience” (NIST, 2020). The Encyclopedia Nipponica likewise divides the study of handwriting into the study of its link with personality and the examination of whether two writings come from the same person (Kuroda, Nipponica).

Handwriting also carries information about how the hand moves. What medical research calls micrographia is not naturally small writing but an abnormal reduction in writing size, studied in connection with Parkinson’s disease; in studies on graphic tablets, writing speed and fluency told patients and controls apart better than size did (Letanneux et al., 2014). Shrinking writing can also appear in other neurological conditions, and this research measures how the hand moves, not personality, to help doctors with diagnosis (from the abstract; Inzelberg et al., 2016). If your writing has become noticeably smaller or slower than it used to be, that is something to have checked by a doctor, not read as a sign of character.

Deborah Thorpe, a historian who has written on graphology, notes that the link between illness and handwriting is widely accepted, while the link between psychological traits or states and writing remains controversial. Some recent studies have dropped the name graphology and cautiously examine how features such as signatures or pen movements measured on tablets relate to personality traits and to changing states such as emotions. They are still at an early stage, but Thorpe views these more rigorous recent studies with cautious optimism (Thorpe, 2018).

Handwriting readings make a good topic for comparing notes with friends. What the research shows is that personality is hard to read from the shape of handwriting, not that you should never talk about it. A few points make it easier to enjoy.

First, use a reading to start a conversation, not to deliver a verdict. Instead of “Your writing is big, so you must be pushy”, ask “What are you putting your energy into these days?”, and the same topic helps you get to know the person better. Second, do not use it to choose or reject partners or colleagues: in hiring research, graphology’s validity was just 0.02 (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).

Third, a company that asks for a handwritten application is not necessarily analysing your handwriting. In the Swiss study, recruiters who asked for one more often used it to form a first impression, for initial screening or to filter out less motivated applicants (Bangerter et al., 2009), and in France, candidates must be told in advance which methods will be used to assess them (Code du travail, art. L1221-8). Fourth, if your own handwriting becomes noticeably smaller or slower than before, see a doctor rather than a graphologist.

Fifth, on days when you want to understand yourself, try tests that measure your current tendencies from your answers. The Big Five personality test measures the five traits that the studies above compared with handwriting, and the MBTI test shows a type based on four preferences. Both give results from the items you answer, not from your handwriting. How far to trust MBTI is covered in the guide to MBTI accuracy.

Q. Can handwriting reveal personality? A. The studies we found do not support reading personality from the shape of handwriting. In studies that had people write the same text and compared handwriting features with personality tests, meaningful links were few, and no handwriting feature consistently pointed to a particular trait (Furnham, 1988; Gawda, 2014), and in a meta-analysis of 17 hiring studies, graphologists’ predictions were close to zero in the few cases where everyone wrote the same text (Neter & Ben-Shakhar, 1989). There are supporting studies too (Chernov & Caspers, 2020), and the British Psychological Society’s guidance, while citing a review that found no support for using handwriting to predict work performance, adds that its conclusion could change if new evidence appears (British Psychological Society, 2016).

Q. Does large handwriting mean extraversion and small handwriting shyness? What about slant or pressure? A. Graphology handbooks link large writing with egotism, small writing with modesty, wide spacing with extraversion and tight spacing with introversion (King & Koehler, 2000), but in the studies we found, size, slant and pressure did not consistently point to particular traits. In a study of 64 adults, of more than 70 correlations, under 6% were significant (Furnham, 1988), and in a study of 260 students, “medium pressure” went with all five traits, so it could not tell them apart (Gawda, 2014).

Q. If a company asks for a handwritten cover letter, will it analyse my handwriting? A. Not necessarily. Of 63 Swiss recruiters who asked for handwritten letters, 22.2% said they used them to analyse the handwriting, while more of them, 77.6%, used them to form a first impression (Bangerter et al., 2009). France’s Labour Code requires that candidates be told about recruitment methods in advance and that the methods be relevant to their purpose (Code du travail, art. L1221-8). We found no such surveys for Korea or Japan.

Q. Is forensic handwriting examination the same as graphology? A. No. Forensic handwriting examination is a forensic field that works out who wrote a document (NIST, 2020), while graphology tries to read personality from handwriting; the Encyclopedia Nipponica also describes the two separately (Kuroda, Nipponica). That examiners can identify a writer does not mean that graphology’s personality readings are right.

Q. My handwriting has become smaller than before. Has my personality changed? A. Changes in handwriting have more to do with how the hand moves than with personality. Medical research has studied micrographia, an abnormal reduction in writing size, in Parkinson’s disease and other conditions, and reported that writing speed and fluency tell patients apart better than size does (Letanneux et al., 2014; Inzelberg et al., 2016). If you notice such a change, have it checked by a doctor rather than read by a graphologist.

Q. Can AI handwriting personality analysis be trusted? A. Earlier studies that extracted handwriting features by computer and mapped them to personality traits have been described as struggling to provide convincing evidence; more rigorous recent studies are viewed with cautious optimism but are still at an early stage (Thorpe, 2018). In a 2026 study from India, graphologists generally agreed when identifying handwriting features, but models using those features did not consistently predict personality questionnaire scores better than the average did (Thomas et al., 2026). When you see an “accuracy” percentage, check whether it was measured against personality test scores or only against a graphologist’s readings.

Q. Is there a test that reads personality from handwriting? A. mind.io does not offer a test that judges personality from your handwriting. If you want to look at your tendencies through your own answers, try the Big Five personality test. Why a reading that fits everyone can sound like you is explained in the guide to the Barnum effect.

References: King, R. N., & Koehler, D. J. (2000), Illusory correlations in graphological inference, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 6(4), 336-348, https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.6.4.336; Furnham, A. (1988), Write and wrong: the validity of graphological analysis, Skeptical Inquirer 13 (Fall 1988), 64-69, https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/1988/10/22165251/p71.pdf; Gawda, B. (2014), Lack of evidence for the assessment of personality traits using handwriting analysis, Polish Psychological Bulletin 45(1), 73-79, https://doi.org/10.2478/ppb-2014-0011; Neter, E., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1989), The predictive validity of graphological inferences: a meta-analytic approach, Personality and Individual Differences 10(7), 737-745, https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(89)90120-7; Expert Working Group for Human Factors in Handwriting Examination (2020), Forensic handwriting examination and human factors: improving the practice through a systems approach, NISTIR 8282, National Institute of Standards and Technology, https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8282; Letanneux, A., Danna, J., Velay, J.-L., Viallet, F., & Pinto, S. (2014), From micrographia to Parkinson’s disease dysgraphia, Movement Disorders 29(12), 1467-1475, https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.25990; Chernov, Y., & Caspers, C. (2020), Formalized computer-aided handwriting psychology: validation and integration into psychological assessment, Behavioral Sciences 10(1), 27, https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10010027; Kuroda, M., Hissekigaku [graphology], Nihon Daihyakka Zensho (Encyclopedia Nipponica), Shogakukan, via Kotobank, https://kotobank.jp/word/%E7%AD%86%E8%B7%A1%E5%AD%A6-120151; Allport, G. W., & Vernon, P. E. (1933), Studies in expressive movement, New York: Macmillan (cited in King & Koehler, 2000); Eysenck, H. J. (1945), Graphological analysis and psychiatry: an experimental study, British Journal of Psychology 35, 70-81 (cited in Gawda, 2014); Furnham, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Callahan, I. (2003), Does graphology predict personality and intelligence?, Individual Differences Research 1(2), https://doi.org/10.65030/idr.01008; Dazzi, C., & Pedrabissi, L. (2009), Graphology and personality: an empirical study on validity of handwriting analysis, Psychological Reports 105(3), 1255-1268, https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.105.F.1255-1268; Dean, G. A. (1992), The bottom line: effect size, in B. L. Beyerstein & D. F. Beyerstein (eds.), The write stuff: evaluations of graphology, the study of handwriting analysis, 269-341, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books (cited in King & Koehler, 2000); Thomas, S., Seera, M., & Goel, M. (2026), Predictive validity of manually coded handwriting features for questionnaire derived personality scores, Discover Artificial Intelligence 6, 1489, https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-026-02132-z; British Psychological Society (2016), The validity of graphology in personnel assessment, Psychological Testing Centre, https://www.bps.org.uk/guideline/validity-graphology-personnel-assessment; Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998), The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings, Psychological Bulletin 124(2), 262-274, https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262; Ben-Shakhar, G., Bar-Hillel, M., Bilu, Y., Ben-Abba, E., & Flug, A. (1986), Can graphology predict occupational success? Two empirical studies and some methodological ruminations, Journal of Applied Psychology 71(4), 645-653, https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.4.645; Bangerter, A., König, C. J., Blatti, S., & Salvisberg, A. (2009), How widespread is graphology in personnel selection practice? A case study of a job market myth, International Journal of Selection and Assessment 17(2), 219-230, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00464.x; Code du travail (France), articles L1221-6 and L1221-8, https://code.travail.gouv.fr/code-du-travail/l1221-6 and https://code.travail.gouv.fr/code-du-travail/l1221-8; Code du travail numérique (2026), Candidat à une offre d’emploi : méthodes de recrutement autorisées (fiche service-public.gouv.fr, updated 20 February 2026), https://code.travail.gouv.fr/fiche-service-public/candidat-a-une-offre-demploi-methodes-de-recrutement-autorisees; Assemblée nationale (1996), Question écrite n° 39598, réponse du ministère du Travail et des Affaires sociales, Journal officiel, 16 September 1996, 4978, https://questions.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/10/questions/QANR5L10QE39598; Assemblée nationale (1999), Question écrite n° 31456, réponse du ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité, Journal officiel, 15 November 1999, 6591, https://questions.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/11/questions/QANR5L11QE31456; McKelvie, S. J. (1990), Student acceptance of a generalized personality description: Forer’s graphologist revisited, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 5, 91-95 (cited in King & Koehler, 2000); Bushnell, I. W. R. (1996), A comparison of the validity of handwriting analysis with that of the Cattell 16PF, International Journal of Selection and Assessment 4(1), 12-17, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.1996.tb00043.x; Inzelberg, R., Plotnik, M., Harpaz, N. K., & Flash, T. (2016), Micrographia, much beyond the writer’s hand, Parkinsonism & Related Disorders 26, 1-9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2016.03.003; Thorpe, D. E. (2018), “Nonsense rides piggyback on sensible things”: the past, present, and future of graphology, in Medical Paratexts from Medieval to Modern, Palgrave Macmillan, 139-155, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73426-2_9