Vol. 6, No.
1, April 2003
FORENSIC DO CUM ENT EX AMINAT ION/Comparing Handwriting by Computer: 43-4-990822/0305
IMPROVED POSSIBILITIES FOR COMPARING
HANDWRITING TO HANDWRITING BY USING “SCRIPT”1
A computer system for the comparison of handwriting and hand printing of one person.
by Christian Grafl2
REFERENCES: Grafl, C., "Improved Possibilities For Comparing
Handwriting to Handprinting by Using “Script”," The International
Journal of Forensic Document Examiners, Vol. 6, No. 1, April 2003, pp.
1-4.
ABSTRACT: The present study represents the extended possibilities
enabled by the use of a computer system for comparison of handwritings
and hand printings of one person. The comparison of one handwritten and
one hand printed text of 100 different persons with the aid of the computer
system "SCRIPT" indicated that six writing features showed no significant
changes of their values. The results of my investigation do not indeed
allow the conclusion that the possibilities of computer-aided handwriting
examination cancel the basic principle that one shall match only
comparable writings. Nevertheless, comparison of handwriting and hand
printing is neither impossible nor useless. The extended possibilities
offered by computer-assisted analyzing of handwritten texts enable the
efficient use of hand printing features, even if specimen of the same person
are only available in handwriting.
KEYWORDS: SCRIPT, handwriting, hand printing, comparison,
computer.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
One of the undisputed principles of handwriting examination specifies
that it is necessary to compare only like with like [1]. Therefore, in the
opinion of most document examiners, comparing the cursive handwriting
of one person to its hand printing is of very little assistance [2]. My
presentation deals with the question of whether there is nevertheless a
chance to associate the type of writing with the markedness of some
writing features. This question is not a simple academic problem, but is of
great practical importance. For example, imagine a threatening or insulting
anonymous letter which is written in hand printing. The expert seeks to
find the writer of the questioned document, but all specimens of the
reference collection are written in cursive handwriting.
Before presenting the material and method of my study, it is necessary
to inform you what is meant by cursive handwriting, respectively script,
and hand printing, respectively hand lettering, in my study. For that
purpose, Figure 1 shows two examples of writings. The above one is
written in cursive handwriting and the writing below is an example of what
I call hand printing or hand lettering:
Figure 1: Writing examples
1
Presented a the 15th Meeting of the International Association of Forensic
Sciences, Los Angeles, CA, August 22-28, 1999
2
Associate Professor, Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology,
Unviersity of Vienna, A-1090 Wien, Universitätsstraße 10/11, Austria,
Phone (+43) 1 4277/34622, Fax: (+43) 1 4277/9346, email:
christian.grafl@univie.ac.at
Copyright © 2003 Shunderson Communication, Inc. All Rights of Reproduction Reserved
2.0 MATERIAL
For my study, I collected a total of 821 handwritings which came
from people of different ages and sexes, of different education and
origins. The first part of my writing material was made available by the
handwriting investigation unit of the police department in Vienna. It
consists of a random selection of writings, which was either gathered
by members of this office within the framework of their professional
activity or came from penal institutions. The second part of the writing
material was written by people who are part of my professional and
private environment. In this case, I attempted to obtain handwritings
of persons from diverse backgrounds. The persons wrote down either
a given text or an invented text in different writing styles.
As a first step, I selected 719 handwritings of the total collection
of 821 documents, which were written either in script or in
handprinting. After removing as a second step all documents of
persons who wrote more than one text in the same writing style, there
remained 656 documents written either in cursive handwriting (521
papers) or in handprinted style (135 papers). Within each group, all
papers were written by different persons. This writing sample of 656
documents is called the “entire writing group”.
The “entire writing group” contains 100 so-called “writing pairs”.
These are 200 individual papers which arrive in each case from one
author and consist of a handwritten text as well as a handprinted text.
These texts are not necessarily word-alike, but mainly they reproduce
a standard specimen.
Table 1 shows the gender and age of the persons who wrote the
writing pairs. As the absolute number of persons is 100, percentages
need not be displayed separately.
Table 1: Gender and age of all 100 authors of the “writing pairs”
Gender Number = Percentages
Female 42
Male 58
Age Number = Percentages
- 20 years 11
21 – 40 years 67
40 years and older 22
The first part of Table 1 shows that compared with the resident
population, male writers are over represented in my sample. In Austria,
men account for only 48% of the population, whereas the percentage
of men in my sample is 58%. The second part of Table 1 reveals that
the great majority of people of my writing pairs are 21 to 40 years old.
This is due to the fact that the great majority of these writers are people
who belong to my professional and private environment.
1
The International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners

3.0 METHOD The feature “forms of writing” is the distinction characteristic

All documents I collected for my study were analyzed by using the
computer system “SCRIPT”. As a result of utilizing computer support, it
was possible to ascertain individual writing features with an accuracy
which cannot be achieved by means of individual measurements.
The handwriting analysis system “SCRIPT” was jointly developed by
the Netherlands Institute for Forensic Examinations and Research (NIFO)
and the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research,
Institute of Applied Physics (TNO-TPD). The system has been presented
on several international conferences, for example on the 14th Meeting of
the IAFS in Tokyo 1996 by Leny Kroon-van der Kooij [3].
“SCRIPT” is a computerized selection system which offers the
possibility to scan, store, and analyze various handwritings, as well as to
search in collections of stored handwritings for possible matches to a
questioned sample. “SCRIPT” enables the analysis of all handwritten
texts. The result of analyzing a text by means of “SCRIPT” is a vector of
measurements on 18 biometric (quantitative) and 4 general (qualitative)
features of this handwriting. All these features are independent of the
shape or construction of individual letters or numbers.
To formulate my working hypothesis, I brought together the 22 writing
features of “SCRIPT” and the registration system developed by Lothar
Michel. Michel comprised all single writing features into nine so-called
basic components (“Grundkomponenten”). These basic components allow
a complete analysis of a handwriting [4].
Based on a literature review and my personal experience, I
propounded the working hypothesis that the comparison of a handwritten
and a hand printed text of one person reveals writer-particular agreements
in writing features belonging to the basic components:
between the two groups of handwriting and handprinting. Therefore,
it cannot serve as an evaluation criterion.
The remaining three qualitative features:
• “degree of connectivity”;
• “lead-in strokes”, and;
• “tail strokes”
show a significant change in their values according to the statistical
test procedure by Wilcoxon.
Four quantitative features had to be excluded from statistical test
procedures due to the very small number of writings which in this
respect could be analyzed. Seven of the remaining 14 writing features
displayed a significant change in their values according to the t-test for
dependent samples, while seven writing features show no significant
change in their values.
In addition to the qualitative and quantitative writing features used
by “SCRIPT”, I analyzed the shape of individual letters and numerals.
The comparison of letters or numerals raises the question of which
standard has to be applied. When do we regard two letters as equal or
different? Figure 2 illustrates this problem:

• direction of movements;
Figure 2: Handwriting and hand printing deriving from the same
• vertical and horizontal extension, and;
person.
• vertical and horizontal arrangement.
These two words were written by the same person. The above one
The interpretation of my data is divided into two steps. First of all, I
was written in cursive handwriting, the word below in printing style.
examined the 656 documents of the entire writing group and compared the
If you glance at the first letter “a” in both words, you can see a great
significance of the writing features in my 521 handwritten papers with the
deal of conformity. However, if you examine the two letters
significance in my group of 135 hand printed papers. Secondly, the 200
thoroughly you can also find a lot of differences. For example, the
single papers of my writing pairs could be evaluated whether writing
beginning stroke of the ovals shows a different length, while the last
features in their markedness change significantly if an individual writer
stroke of the letters shows a different slope.
carries out a modification of his writing type.
To avoid a lot of correspondent forms which are in fact not
significant, I only considered conformities in letters or numerals
4.0 RESULTS showing a significant difference to the copybook form. Figure 3
illustrates my standard:
4.1 Entire Writing Group

The comparison of my group of handwritten texts to the group of hand

printed texts leads to significant differences in the markedness of 12
writing features used by the computer system “SCRIPT”. By application
of the statistical test procedures according to Man and Whitney,
respectively Kolmogorov-Smirnov, only five writing features show no
significant difference in their value.
Due to the fact that at this stage of my study only writing groups are
compared, it is not possible to answer the question of whether the
handwritten and the hand printed texts of one person reveal writer-
particular agreements in writing features. This fundamental question of my
study can only be answered after comparing the handwritten paper to the
Figure 3: Handwriting and hand printing deriving from the same
hand printed document of one person.
person.
4.2 Writing Pairs
The whole text was written by one person. The above line is
written in cursive handwriting and the line below in handprinting. If
The comparison of the handwritten and hand printed texts of one
you compare the words you can find a lot of conformity, for instance
single person on the basis of all 22 writing features used by “SCRIPT”
the letters “K” or “a”. But the only letter shape I counted in this case
show the following results:

2 Copyright © 2003 Shunderson Communications, Inc. All Rights of Reproduction Reserved

 Vol. 6, No.1, April 2003

is the letter “W”. It is written in the same way in handwriting and hand 4.3 SUMMARY
printing. Moreover, it is the only letter written in a significantly different
style to the Austrian copybook form, and is thus rather uncommon. The working hypothesis set up before examining the handwriting
Applying the above mentioned standard, comparing the shape of single samples read that the comparison of a handwritten and a hand printed
letters and numerals of all my 100 writing pairs results in the following text of one person would reveal writer-particular agreements in writing
table: features belonging to the basic components “direction of movements”,
“vertical and horizontal extension”, and “vertical and horizontal
Table 2: Letters and numerals with significant differences to the arrangement”.
Austrian copybook form. After analyzing all documents, it can be stated that the comparison
correspondent shape of value Number = Percentages of handwritten and hand printed texts of a person proves writer-
particular agreements in six writing features. The values of these six
none 37 writing features are calculated by the computer system “SCRIPT”. All
of these six writing features have to do with the vertical and horizontal
1 letter 27
extension and the vertical and horizontal arrangement of a
> 1 letter 27 handwriting.
The shape of letters or numerals is to a great extent specific for a
only in numerals 9
single writer as well. My assumption that writing characteristics
belonging to the basic component “direction of movements” show
writer-particular agreements could not be verified, however.
We can gather from this table that 63% of my 100 writing pairs show The six writing characteristics indicating writer-particular
a correspondent shape at least in one letter or numeral. This is remarkable agreements and calculated by “SCRIPT” are summarized in the
because – as mentioned several times already – I only counted significant following table. The first column shows the name of the feature as
conformities. Thus the shape of letters is a helpful supplementary tool for used by the computer system; the second column displays a short
comparing handwriting to hand printing. description of the feature.

Table 3: Stable writing characteristics irrespective of the writing style

Writing features indicating writer-particular agreements.

Name Description
variation in format standard deviation of the average height of
lowercase letters
letter height/letter width height of lowercase letters in relation to their
width
word distance/line distance gap between words in relation to line space
variation in word distance/line distance standard deviation of word gap in relation to line
space
letter position average distance between the basis line and the
basis of characters in relation to line space
variation in letter position standard deviation of the average distance
between the basis line and the basis of characters
in relation to line space

Copyright © 2003 Shunderson Communication, Inc. All Rights of Reproduction Reserved 3

The International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners

5.0 TESTING THE OUTCOME OF MY STUDY hand printing, it is inherently different, and therefore cannot serve as a
search parameter.
As mentioned above, “SCRIPT” is a computerized selection system For the second search process, I excluded the value of the parameter
which offers the possibility to search in collections of stored handwritings “forms of writing” as well as the values of all writing features which are,
for possible matches to a questioned sample. For that purpose, the system according to my study, to a very high degree dependent on the writing
compares the values of all 22 writing features of the handwriting in style. These six writing features are:
question to the handwritings in the database. The result is a so-called “hit
list” showing the most similar handwritings of the database first. • writing angle;
Testing the outcome of my study, I entered the 100 hand printed • variation in writing angle;
papers of my writing pairs as “questioned documents” and searched for the • degree of connectivity;
matching handwritten paper. The database comprised all 821 handwritings • underlengths/upperlengths;
I collected for my study. In this way, I had to perform 100 single search • capitals/small letters; and,
processes which resulted in 100 hit lists, each displaying the position of • lead-in strokes.
the handwriting belonging to the hand printing just “questioned”.
At first I excluded only the value of the parameter “forms of writing” Table 4 indicates the results of both the first and the second search
when performing the search process. As the feature “forms of writing” is processes:
a distinction characteristic between the two groups of handwriting and

Table 4: Search processes.

Position of the handwriting belonging to First search process (excluding “forms of Second search process (excluding “forms
the “questioned” hand printing in the “hit writing”) of writing” and 6 other features dependent
list” on the writing style)
1st Position 5 9
2nd – 10th Position 15 23
th th
11 – 100 Position 52 44
th
> 100 Position 28 24

Table 4 illustrates clearly the better performance of the second search examination.
process. According to the first search process, 20% of all 100 handwritings
written by the same writer as the “questioned” hand printed document turn REFERENCES
out at the first through tenth position. The second search process counts
nearly one third of the handwritings at the first through tenth position of [1]. Ellen, David, The Scientific Examination of Documents. Second
the hit list. Edition, Taylor & Francis, London 1997, 64.

6.0 CONCLUSION [2]. Hilton, Ordway, Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents,

Elsevier, New York 1982, 217.
The objective of my study was to examine the extended possibilities
for comparison of handwritings and hand printings of one person enabled [3]. Kroon-van der Kooij, Leny, The NIFO-TNO System “SCRIPT”,
by the use of a computer system. The comparison of one handwritten and Presented at the 14th Meeting of the IAFS, August 1996.
one hand printed text of 100 different persons with the help of the
computer system “SCRIPT” indicated that six writing features out of the [4]. Michel, Lothar, Gerichtliche Schriftvergleichung, de Gruyter, Berlin
21 characteristics showed no significant changes of their values when - New York 1982, 78-85.
varying the writing style.
The results of my investigation do not indeed allow the conclusion that
the possibilities of computer-aided handwriting examination cancel the
basic principle that it is necessary to compare only like with like. If
possible, cursive handwriting should be compared with cursive
handwriting and printed text with printed text. For realization of optimal
comparison material, specimen and questioned writing should be of the
same writing style.
Nevertheless, comparison of handwriting and hand printing is neither
impossible nor useless. The extended possibilities offered by computer-
assisted analyzing of handwritten texts enable the efficient use of hand
printing features, even if specimens of the same person are only available
in handwriting. Appropriate search processes with “SCRIPT” confirmed
this result and encourage further developments on this field of handwriting

4 Copyright © 2003 Shunderson Communications, Inc. All Rights of Reproduction Reserved