In summary, then, it seems that graphology as currently practiced is a typical pseudoscience and has no place in character assessment or employment practice. There is no good scientific evidence to justify its use, and the graphologists do not seem about to come up with any.

In late 1988 I undertook to estimate the extent to which graphology is used in personnel practice in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. I contacted local graphologists, employment agencies and personnel consultants, a firm of industrial psychologists, and a selection of large corporate employers. The latter included the airlines, real estate, electronics, security services, and stock brokerage. I also called the personnel offices of the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth and the counseling and testing office at the University of Texas at Arlington. The uniform response was "we don't use it and we don't know anyone who does." Apparently the claims in the press about the wide use of graphology in business are exaggerated, at least in the north Texas area. From my conversations with the head of the Institute for Graphological Science in Dallas and a local graphoanalytic practitioner, I gathered the impression that most users of graphological services are individuals or small businesses. Obviously, someone is using it, or the several local graphologists would not be in business.

There is a good reason why large corporate employers and local governments do not use graphology: the use of unvalidated pre-employment tests is unlawful if the tests have any discriminatory impact. Although a full review of employment discrimination law is beyond the scope of this fact sheet, we should look at Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the primary federal law relating to employment discrimination. Title VII does not apply to all employers, but it has a pervasive influence on American employment policies.

Title VII applies to employers, employment agencies and unions. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or reprisal. The Act allows the use of employment tests if they are "professionally developed" and not used to discriminate. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has interpreted the Act to permit only the use of job-related tests. The EEOC guidelines are based on the standards of the American Psychological Association (APA) and require "criteria-related validity." That is, validity must be demonstrated by comparing test scores with some external variable that provides a direct measure of the characteristic in question. Put another way, test scores must correlate with performance on the job, and this must be established in a statistically proper way. This interpretation of the Act was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971).

Graphological assessments are usually free-form personality descriptions rather than scored tests, but this does not exempt them from Title VII's coverage. The APA standards require that when any kind of test is used to aid an interviewer's assessment, the resulting assessment should be validated like other psychometric measures. The standards state: "...when on the basis of projective test data, biographical information, or various behavioral cues elicited during an interview, the interviewer makes a statement such as 'this man will fail...' he is making a prediction based on his assessment and should be held to the standards for demonstrating the validity of his prediction."

If graphology is a pseudoscience, as seems highly probable, then graphological evaluations are nothing more than character readings combined with a large chance element. The biases of the graphologist will consciously or unconsciously skew the results. If the result is an assessment which results in discrimination on one of the grounds recognized by Title VII, then users of graphological tests bear a heavy burden of showing job-related validity for them. Since the current state of scientific knowledge does not support the validity of graphological judgments, employers using such assessments are in a very risky legal position. If you are asked to submit a handwriting sample for your next job interview, call your lawyer!

Some other legal aspects of graphology are worth mentioning. The Institute for Graphological Science the only graphology school licensed under the Texas Proprietary School Act. The Act requires applicants for a proprietary school certificate to show that the courses, curriculum and instruction are of such a quality, content and length as to reasonably achieve the stated objectives for which they are offered. Apparently the Act's administrator is not required to go behind the course outline and judge the validity of what is being taught. He is only required to find that the school will adequately meet its teaching objectives. Officials in Austin confirmed this interpretation with me in a telephone conversation. I posed the question of how an application for a course in astrology would be handled. I was told (after some hesitation) that the statute would probably not prevent the approval of such an application. It seems to me that a proper interpretation of the statute would hold "objectives" to mean the objectives of assessing personality and predicting behavior, not merely the objectives of teaching graphological techniques. Anyway, the use of state licensing laws by pseudoscience practitioners to achieve credibility and legal protection is a potentially serious problem. Consider the success of the chiropractors, who years ago embraced medical licensing laws instead of fighting them.

Most graphologists boast of providing evidence as expert witnesses in court. I was unable to locate a single case in which graphological testimony for the purpose of personality assessment has been admitted in evidence. A few courts have considered whether or not a handwriting analyst can give testimony as to a person's physical or mental condition, and all of them have held such testimony inadmissible. See, for example, Warren v. Hartnett, 561 S.W.2d 860 (Tex. Civ. App.1977); and Cameron v. Knapp, 520 N.Y.S. 2d 917 (N.Y. Sup. 1987). If graphological evidence is offered, it must meet the test for scientific evidence required in most jurisdictions. That is, there must be a general consensus in the appropriate scientific field that the theory behind the technique is sound, and that it has been reliably reduced to practice. Neither is the case with graphology. Where do the graphologists' claims of courtroom expertise come from? Many graphologists today attempt to qualify themselves as questioned-document examiners. Forensic handwriting examination for the purpose of detecting altered or forged writings has long been recognized by the courts as admissible. It appears that graphologists are attempting to bootstrap themselves into respectability by combining forensic handwriting analysis with their questionable personality-assessment techniques.

Finally, there is no state certification or licensing of graphologists in Texas. Statements to that effect in graphologists' promotional literature can only refer to certification" by a graphological school or association.

nice information,please post more

thanks
satish