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

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q1
Currency · newest study 1914 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? The article concludes there is little evidence of correlation between mirror-script reading and illegible-writing reading, with the exception of records on one illegible-writing specimen. → 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

q1 · i? · associational · r1

This is the authors' summary statement across their mirror-reading and illegible-writing tests with the same 16 reagents; the summary section offers it as a general conclusion rather than printing a specific correlation coefficient in this sentence.

"With the exception of records on one specimen of illegible writing, there is little evidence of correlation of ability to read mirror-script and ability to read illegible writing."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Reading and Language — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

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
• 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