Graphology 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 geometric 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: "[i]t'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
Graphology work performance, aptitudes, or personality. Graphology thus fails according to the standards a genuine psychological test must pass before it can ethically be released for use on an unsuspecting public.<br><br> Dean found that no particular school of graphology fared better than any other... In fact, no graphologist of any stripe was able to show reliably better performance than untrained amateurs making guesses from the same materials. In the vast majority of studies, neither group exceeded chance expectancy. Dunning concludes:Other divining techniques like iridology, phrenology, palmistry, and astrology also have differing schools of thought, require years of training, offer expensive certifications,