Graphology - Validity

Validity

Although graphology had some support in the scientific community before the mid-twentieth century, the results of most recent surveys on the ability for graphology to assess personality and job performance have been negative. Graphology is primarily used as a recruiting tool to screen candidates during the evaluation process. Many studies have been conducted to assess its effectiveness to predict personality and job performance. Recent studies testing the validity of using handwriting for predicting personality traits and job performance have been consistently negative.

In a 1987 study, graphologists were unable to predict scores on the Eysenck personality questionnaire using writing samples from the same people. In a 1988 study, graphologists were unable to predict scores on the Myers-Briggs test using writing samples from the same people. A 1982 meta-analysis drawn from over 200 studies concludes that graphologists were generally unable to predict any kind of personality trait on any personality test.

Measures of job performance appear similarly unrelated to the handwriting metrics of graphologists. Professional graphologists using handwriting analysis were just as ineffective as lay people at predicting performance in a 1989 study. A broad literature screen done by King and Koehler confirmed dozens of studies showing the mechanical aspects of graphology (slant, slope, etc.) are essentially worthless predictors of job performance.

Rowan Bayne, a British psychologist who has written several studies on graphology, summarized his view of the appeal of graphology: "It's very seductive because at a very crude level someone who is neat and well behaved tends to have neat handwriting", adding that the practice is "useless... absolutely hopeless". The British Psychological Society ranks graphology alongside astrology, giving them both "zero validity".

Overall, despite a few studies that support handwriting analysis, such as Crumbaugh and Stockholm, the large majority of studies such as Ben-Shakar, Bar-Hillel, Blum, Ben-Abba, & Flug and many others indicate evidence against its predictive validity.