https://www.grafoteca.com/biblioteca/files/original/d7a0fffb35bfb1a9b558ed3984b7e884.pdf b30de00877568ead0ec6f2dd2e3c9352 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Versione inviata Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource PsychoGrapho: A Double-Blind Cohort Study of Jungian Typology and Handwriting Analysis Type The nature or genre of the resource Journal Article Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource E. M. Barnes J. Six R. C. Hawkins II. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2016-01-28 Language A language of the resource English Zotero Title PsychoGrapho: A Double-Blind Cohort Study of Jungian Typology and Handwriting Analysis Item Type Journal Article Author E. M. Barnes J. Six R. C. Hawkins II. URL http://www.davidpublisher.org/index.php/Home/Article/index?id=24633.html Volume 6 Issue 1 Publication Title Journal of Psychology Research ISSN 21595542, 21595550 Date 2016-01-28 DOI 10.17265/2159-5542/2016.01.006 Access Date 2019-04-23 18:39:14 Library Catalog Crossref Language English Abstract Note Previous research studies on the relationship between Jungian typology and handwriting analysis have been informal, inconclusive, or methodologically flawed. In the present double-blind cohort study, four expert handwriting analysts, who were knowledgeable about Jungian theory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), independently determined the four letter MBTI types of participants based upon blind interpretation of their handwriting samples. The results were that the handwriting analysts’ accuracy of assigning four-letter MBTI types (or correctly identifying the cohort’s preferences on each of the four dichotomies) was no better than chance, and the analysts’ ratings did not agree with one another. We discuss the limitations of our study, and the potential next research steps. Short Title PsychoGrapho Archive Internet Attachment Title Versione inviata Scientific Graphology