Version	1.1	/	Date	of	Issue:	2.09.16 /	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

OSAC	RESEARCH	NEEDS	ASSESSMENT	FORM

Title	of	research	need: Hand	printing	complexity	and	comparability

Keyword(s): Hand	printing,	handwriting,	handwriting	comparisons,	method	verification

Submitting	subcommittee(s): Forensic	Document	Examination Date	Approved:

(If	SAC	review	identifies	additional	subcommittees,	add	them	to	the	box	above.)

Background	Information:

1. Description	of	research	need:

Forensic	Document	Examiners,	FDEs,	conduct	handwriting	comparisons,	whether	glyphs	that	comprise	the	

writing	are	classified	as	cursive,	printed,	or	mixed,	or	complex,	or	simplistic.		Prior	research	has	begun	to	

subdivide	writing	groups,	and	further	research	into	complexity,	comparability,	and	FDE	expertise	is	needed.	

Additional	basic	and	applied	research	would	further	the	body	of	knowledge about	handwriting,	handwriting	

comparisons,	and	the	differentiation	between	FDE	and	layperson	capabilities	to	conduct	comparisons.

2. Key	bibliographic	references	relating	to	this	research	need:

1. Bird,	C,	Found,	B.,	and	Rogers,	D.,	Forensic	handwriting	examiners'	skill	in	distinguishing	between	

natural	and	disguised	handwriting	behaviours.		Journal	of Forensic	Sciences, 2010.		55:	p.	1291-1295.

2. Boot,	David,	An	Investigation	into	the	Degree	of	Similarity	in	the	Handwriting	of	Identical	and	

Fraternal	Twins	in	New	Zealand,	Journal	of	the	American	Society	of	Questioned	Document	Examiners,	

Vol.	1,	No.	2,	1998

3. Johnson,	Mark	E.,	Vastrick,	Thomas	W.,	Boulanger,	Michele,	Schuetzner,	Ellen,	Measuring	The	

Frequency	Occurrence	of	Handwriting	and	Hand-Printing	Characteristics,	Final	Report	- NIJ	Award	

2010-DN-BX-K273

4. Kam,	M.,	Wetstein,	J.,	and	Conn,	R.,	(1994)	Proficiency	of	Professional	Document	Examiners	in	Writer	

Identification,	Journal	of	Forensic	Sciences, Vol.	39,	No.	1,	pp.	5-14.

5. Kam,	M,.	Fielding,	G.,	and	Conn,	R.,	(1997)	Writer	Identification	by	Professional	Document	

Examiners,	Journal	of	Forensic	Sciences, Vol.	42,	No.	5,	pp. 778-786.

6. Kam,	M.,	Fielding,	G.,	and	Conn,	R.,	(1998)	Effects	of	Monetary	Incentives	on	Performance	of	

Nonprofessionals	in	Document-Examination	Proficiency	Tests,	Journal	of	Forensic	Sciences,	Vol.	43,	

No.	5,	pp.	1000-1004.

7. Kam,	M.,	and	Lin,	E.,	(2003)	Writer	Identification	Using	Hand-Printed	and	Non-Hand-Printed	

Questioned	Documents,	Journal	of	Forensic	Sciences, Vol.	48,	No.	6,	pp.	1391-1395.

8. Livingston,	Orville	B.,	A	Handwriting	and	Pen-Printing	Classification	System	For	Identifying	Law	
Version	1.1	/	Date	of	Issue:	2.09.16 /	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

Violators,	Journal	of	Criminal	Law,	Criminology	and	Police	Science,	Vol.	49,	p.	487.

9. Wooton,	Elaine	X.,	A	Preliminary	Discussion	of	Research	and	Reference	Materials	Using	the	U.S.	INS	

Collection	of	Handwriting	from	Other	Countries,	paper	presented	at	the	annual	meeting	of	the	

ASQDE,	Long	Beach,	CA	1994.

3a. In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	current	laboratory	capabilities?

Results would	assist	examiners in:	understanding	the	intricacies	of	what	they	do	in	the	“eye	– brain”	visual	

comparison	process,	explaining	the	training	process	to	trainees, testifying	in	court,	testifying	in Daubert	

style	challenges.		

3b. In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	understanding	of	the	scientific	basis	for	the	

subcommittee(s)?

Basic	research	would	provide	a	means	of	articulating	the	complexity	of	attempting	to	classify	each	person’s	

writing	with	simplistic terms.		Basic research	could also potentially	describe,	in	a	gestalt	view,	some	of	the	

sub-processes	that	the	human	observer	uses	in	the	process	of	side	by	side	comparisons.	By	way	of	

application	to	FDE,	applied	research	could	further	articulate	the	sub-processes	involved	in	a	side-by-side	

handwriting	comparison.

3c.		In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	services	to	the	criminal	justice	system?

Applied	research	could	potentially	serve	as	verification	that	printed	writing	is	as	identifiable	as	cursive	

writing.		Any	research	that	can	further	validate	forensic	examinations	will	be	a	positive	to	the	criminal	

justice	system.		

4.		Status	assessment	(I,	II,	III,	or	IV): IV Major gap	in	

current	

knowledge

Minor	gap	in	

current	

knowledge

No	or	limited

current	research	

is	being	conducted

I III

Existing current	

research	is	being	

conducted

II IV

This	research	need	has	been	identified	by	one	or	more	subcommittees	of	OSAC	and	is	being	provided	as	an	

informational	resource	to	the	community.

Approvals:

Subcommittee
Version	1.1	/	Date	of	Issue:	2.09.16 /	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

Approval	date:

(Approval	is	by	majority	vote	of	subcommittee.	Once	approved,	forward	to	SAC.)

SAC

1.		Does	the	SAC	agree	with	the	research	need? Yes x No

2.		Does	the	SAC	agree	with	the	status	assessment? Yes x No

If	no,	what	is	the	status	assessment	of	the	SAC:

Approval	date: 17-Mar-2016

(Approval	is	by	majority	vote	of	SAC.		Once	approved,	forward	to	NIST	for	posting.)