Is Graphology Useful in Assessing Major Depression?

This study aimed to develop a handwriting analysis protocol for assessing severe major depressive disorder, in order to evaluate whether graphological analysis could be considered an objective tool and hence if it could be useful for clinicians in their early diagnosis. We modified and improved the methodology described by Lorusso et al. by proposing different graphic indexes based both on the literature and on the observation of a preliminary sample of 13 handwritings of patients affected by major depressive disorder. Then, we recruited 80 participants, divided into two groups: clinical sample (n1⁄444) and control group (n1⁄436). We used Cohen’s Kappa to evaluate the reliability of agreement among four professional graphologists and the consensus between the psychiatric assessment and the ratings given by the judges. We found satisfactory results. Using our protocol, we obtained higher values for Cohen’s Kappa as compared with Lorusso et al. The agreement among graphologists is K1⁄4.62, while the K values for the agreement between psychiatric assessment and graphologists range between .47 and .60. The substantial improvements obtained in comparison with Lorusso et al. are encouraging and support further attempts.

This study aimed to develop a handwriting analysis protocol for assessing severe major depressive disorder, in order to evaluate whether graphological analysis could be considered an objective tool and hence if it could be useful for clinicians in their early diagnosis. We modified and improved the methodology described by Lorusso et al. by proposing different graphic indexes based both on the literature and on the observation of a preliminary sample of 13 handwritings of patients affected by major depressive disorder. Then, we recruited 80 participants, divided into two groups: clinical sample (n = 44) and control group (n = 36). We used Cohen's Kappa to evaluate the reliability of agreement among four professional graphologists and the consensus between the psychiatric assessment and the ratings given by the judges. We found satisfactory results. Using our protocol, we obtained higher values for Cohen's Kappa as compared with Lorusso et al. The agreement among graphologists is K = .62, while the K values for the agreement between psychiatric assessment and graphologists range between .47 and .60. The substantial improvements obtained in comparison with Lorusso et al. are encouraging and support further attempts.