## 3 Results  
All ten participants completed the writing and drawing tasks using the UC. Subsequently, they were assessed using both a subjective questionnaire and an objective evaluation method. The scores are shown in Table 4. The mean subjective score was 70.55 with an SD of 2.56, while the mean objective score was 73.73 with an SD of 4.00. To further examine the distributions of the subjective and objective scores, box plots were created for each evaluation method, as shown in Figure 5a. No outliers were detected in the subjective scores. In contrast, an outlier was identified in the objective scores for participant 9, who received a notably lower score of 64.25 compared to other participants. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \(S_{1}\) & Letter legibility in writing task \\ \hline \(S_{2}\) & Duration in writing task \\ \hline \(S_{3}\) & Pen pressure in drawing task with border \\ \hline \(S_{4}\) & Pen pressure in drawing task without border \\ \hline \(S_{5}\) & Pen angle in drawing task with border \\ \hline \(S_{6}\) & Pen angle in drawing task without border \\ \hline \(S_{7}\) & Handwriting quality in drawing task with border \\ \hline \(S_{8}\) & Handwriting quality in drawing task without border \\ \hline \(S_{9}\) & Duration in drawing task with border \\ \hline \(S_{10}\) & Duration in drawing task without border \\ \hline \(S(j)\) & Comprehensive score of \(j\)-th participant \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: All scoring criteria and their meanings. The difference between subjective and objective scores was calculated for each participant (subjective score minus objective score), as shown in Table 5. The mean difference was \(-3.18\) with an SD of 2.91. The negative mean difference indicates that subjective scores were generally lower than objective scores. A Shapiro-Wilk test confirmed that the differences were normally distributed (\(p=0.1186\)). A paired samples \(t\)-test showed that this difference was statistically significant (t(9) = \(-3.31\), \(p=0.0073\)). The Cohen's d value was \(-1.09\), suggesting a large effect size. Figure 4(b) illustrates the distribution of the differences between subjective and objective scores using a box plot. The box plot includes an identified outlier for participant 9, who had a positive difference of 3.50. In the objective evaluation method of this study, EWM was applied to calculate the weights of the 10 objective indicators, as shown in Table 6. Five indicators had entropy weights greater than 0.1, indicating they contributed more significantly to the objective scores. These indicators were \(S_{4}\), \(S_{5}\), \(S_{6}\), \(S_{7}\), and \(S_{10}\), with entropy weights of 0.2440, 0.1736, 0.1613, 0.1323, and 0.1394, respectively. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \(P_{1}\) & \(P_{2}\) & \(P_{3}\) & \(P_{4}\) & \(P_{5}\) & \(P_{6}\) & \(P_{7}\) & \(P_{8}\) & \(P_{9}\) & \(P_{10}\) & \(\mu^{\ddagger}\) \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & \(\pm\sigma^{\ddagger}\) \\ \hline \(U\)\({}^{*}\) & 72.50 & 70.00 & 67.50 & 68.75 & 70.75 & 68.75 & 75.75 & 71.25 & 67.75 & 72.50 & 70.55 \(\pm\) 2.56 \\ \hline \(S\)\({}^{**}\) & 74.49 & 76.66 & 72.16 & 73.73 & 72.55 & 72.16 & 77.45 & 75.35 & 64.25 & 78.47 & 73.73 \(\pm\) 4.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\) Subjective scores. \({}^{**}\) Objective scores. \({}^{\dagger}\) The mean score. \({}^{\ddagger}\) The standard deviation of the scores.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Statistics of subjective and objective scores. Figure 5: Box plots of subjective and objective scores and their differences. Panel (**a**) displays box plots of the subjective and objective scores for all participants. In the objective scores, an outlier is identified for participant 9, who received a notably lower score compared to the other participants. No outliers are detected in the subjective scores. Panel (**b**) displays a box plot of the differences between the subjective and objective scores (calculated as subjective score minus objective score).