Samples A and C of illegible writing were much more difficult to read than sample B, as shown by equated average times and error ranges.¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 1914 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Reading times indicate samples A and C are much more difficult to read than sample B, and mutilated A was relatively more difficult to interpret than mutilated C. → Downey 1914

Evidence¶

Downey 1914¶

Downey, J. E., and Anderson, J. E. (1914). Form and Position in Handwriting Interpretation. Part I. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Form+and+position+in+handwriting+interpretation%22+Downey+Anderson

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Analysis of the six reading tests (Tables I and II) with 16 reagents: equated per-100-word times ranged from 84 seconds for B 1 to 270.4 seconds for A 2. The authors interpret the relative retardation on mutilated samples as again showing B's comparative ease.

"The time and error range as well as the average time (equated) indicates that samples A and C are much more difficult to read than is sample B."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Reading rates for different samples of unmutilated illegible writing intercorrelate only moderately, with the highest correlation .552 (A 1 and B 1) and one pair too low to be significant. — related
• Apart from one specimen, ability to read mirror-script shows little correlation with ability to read illegible writing. — related
• Correlations between two series of mirror-reading tests on the same 16 subjects range widely depending on how errors are scored, from .087 to .700. — related