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.¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 1914 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 Among unmutilated illegible-writing samples, A 1 and B 1 correlate r = .552 in reading speed, A 1 and C 1 correlate .410, and B 1 and C 1 give a coefficient too low to be significant. → 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 · i3 · associational · r1

In the illegible-writing test, 16 reagents read aloud three unmutilated business-letter specimens (A 1, B 1, C 1) with stop-watch timing; speed and error were put on an equal basis for ranking. The results section prints correlation coefficients r = .552, r = .410, and one 'too low to be significant', and the authors conclude 'the need of better standardization in the tests is evident'.

"the highest is the correlation of A 1 and B 1 (.552), next comes that of A 1 and C 1 (.410); the correlation of B 1 and C 1 gave a coefficient too low to be significant."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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. — related
• Apart from one specimen, ability to read mirror-script shows little correlation with ability to read illegible writing. — related