Content deleted Content added
m Replace hyphen with en-dash. |
m Open access bot: url-access updated in citation with #oabot. |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 72:
===Graphology===
{{Main|Graphology}}
Graphology is the [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]]<ref name='Graph_Beyer_PBS'>{{cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/safarchive/3_ask/archive/qna/3282_bbeyerstein.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010219121809/http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/3_ask/archive/qna/3282_bbeyerstein.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=February 19, 2001 |title=Barry Beyerstein Q&A |access-date=2008-02-22 |work=Ask the Scientists |publisher=Scientific American Frontiers }} "they simply interpret the way we form these various features on the page in much the same way ancient oracles interpreted the entrails of oxen or smoke in the air. i.e., it's a kind of magical divination or fortune telling where 'like begets like'".</ref> analysis of the physical characteristics and patterns of [[handwriting]] purporting to be able to identify the writer, indicating psychological state at the time of writing, or evaluating personality characteristics.<ref name="definition">{{citation | title=Longman Dictionary of Psychology and Psychiatry | publisher=Longman Group United Kingdom | year=1983 }}</ref>
Graphology has been controversial for more than a century. Although supporters point to the [[anecdotal evidence]] of positive testimonials as a reason to use it for personality evaluation, most empirical studies fail to show the validity claimed by its supporters.<ref>{{Citation
Line 108:
==Validity==
Projective tests are criticized from the perspective of [[statistical validity]] and [[psychometrics]].<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last1=Lilienfeld|first1=Scott O.|last2=Wood|first2=James M.|last3=Garb|first3=Howard N.|date=2000|title=The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques|url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/1529-1006.002|journal=Psychological Science in the Public Interest|language=en|volume=1|issue=2|pages=27–66|doi=10.1111/1529-1006.002|pmid=26151980|s2cid=8197201|issn=1529-1006|via=|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|last1=Taylor|first1=Whitney D.|title=Human Figure Drawings|date=2015-01-23|url=http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp141|encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology|pages=1–6|editor-last=Cautin|editor-first=Robin L.|place=Hoboken, NJ, USA|publisher=John Wiley & Sons, Inc.|language=en|doi=10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp141|isbn=978-1-118-62539-2|access-date=2021-02-13|last2=Lee|first2=Catherine M.|s2cid=142799554 |editor2-last=Lilienfeld|editor2-first=Scott O.|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Seitz|first=Jay A.|date=2001|title=A Cognitive-Perceptual Analysis of Projective Tests Used with Children|url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2466/pms.2001.93.2.505|journal=Perceptual and Motor Skills|language=en|volume=93|issue=2|pages=505–522|doi=10.2466/pms.2001.93.2.505|pmid=11769908|s2cid=19518853|issn=0031-5125|via=|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Most of the supporting studies on the validity of projective tests are poor or outdated.<ref name=":1" /> Proponents of projective tests claim there is a discrepancy between [[statistical validity]] and [[clinical validity]].<ref>[[Leopold Szondi]] (1960) ''Das zweite Buch: Lehrbuch der Experimentellen Triebdiagnostik''. Huber, Bern und Stuttgart, 2nd edition. Ch.27, From the Spanish translation, B)II ''Las condiciones estadisticas'', p.396. Quotation: {{blockquote|En esta crítica aparece siempre ''la conocida discrepancia entre la validez estadistica y clinica de todos los «tests» de psicologia profunda''}}</ref>
In the case of clinical use, they rely heavily on [[clinical judgment]], lack [[reliability (statistics)|statistical reliability]] and [[statistical validity]] and many have no standardized criteria to which results may be compared, however this is not always the case. These tests are used frequently, though the [[scientific evidence]] is sometimes debated. There have been many empirical studies based on projective tests (including the use of standardized norms and samples), particularly more established tests. The criticism of lack of scientific evidence to support them and their continued popularity has been referred to as the "projective paradox".<ref name = Cordon>{{cite book |author=Cordón, Luis A. |title=Popular psychology: an encyclopedia |publisher=Greenwood Press |___location=Westport, Conn |year=2005 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/popularpsycholog0000cord/page/201 201–204] |isbn=978-0-313-32457-4 |url=https://archive.org/details/popularpsycholog0000cord/page/201 }}</ref>
| |||