COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HANDWRITING: JUVENILES IN OBSERVATION HOMES VS. JUVENILES IN NGO’S AND SCHOOL
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48165/jfmt.2024.41.2.11Keywords:
NGO’s, Juveniles, Handwriting, Personal IdentificationAbstract
In this study, handwriting of individuals under the age of eighteen who reside in observation homes are compared to the handwriting of individuals selected from non governmental organisations and schools (NGOs). The study, conducted in Uttar Pradesh, India, involved 80 juveniles who were chosen from observation homes and an equal number who came from various schools and non-governmental organisations. A written consent was acquired to maintain privacy of participants. Handwriting samples were collected and analysed using established methodologies to identify patterns, variations, and potential indicators of socio-behavioural differences. The findings reveal significant disparities in handwriting styles and quality between juveniles in observation homes and those in NGOs and schools. The results show that there are significant gaps in educational achievement, mental health indicators and social integration among the observed groups. It is worth mentioning that those in the schools outdid those from the observation homes academically whereas psychological evaluations portrayed them as having worsened mental conditions. On the other hand, the NGO’s children have better social integration and support systems than their counterparts in observation homes. These results emphasize how much a juvenile’s environment affects its development and welfare. Additionally, they call for focused measures and policy changes aimed at catering to the special needs of juveniles in observation homes and ultimately achieving just developmental outcomes that are uniform across different environments. As such, this study offers important information on juvenile justice as well as rehabilitation which calls for a need to come up with personalized interventions that will bridge gaps brought about by inequality while promoting all-round growing among vulnerable young people.
Downloads
References
Planton S, et al. The “handwriting brain”: A meta analysis of neuroimaging studies of motor versus orthographic processes. Cortex. 2013;49(10):2772- 2787.
Feder KP, Majnemer A. Handwriting development, competency, and intervention. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2007;49(4):312-317.
Graham S. Handwriting instruction: A commentary on five studies. Read Writ. 2018;31:1367-1377.
Medwell J, Wray D. Handwriting: What do we know and what do we need to know? Literacy. 2007;41(1):10- 15.
Santangelo T, Graham S. A comprehensive meta analysis of handwriting instruction. Educ Psychol Rev. 2016;28:225-265.
MacDonald JS. Experimental studies of handwriting signals. 1966.
Vredenbregt J, Koster W. Analysis and synthesis of handwriting. Philips Tech Rev. 1971;32(3):73-78.
Lacquaniti F. Central representations of human limb movement as revealed by studies of drawing and
handwriting. Trends Neurosci. 1989;12(8):287-291.
Ghosh S, et al. Graphology based handwritten character analysis for human behaviour identification. CAAI Trans Intell Technol. 2020;5(1):55-65.
Naftali A. Behavior factors in handwriting identification. J Crim Law Criminol Police Sci. 1965;56(4):528-539.
Schomaker LRB. Simulation and recognition of handwriting movements: a vertical approach to modeling human motor behavior. Nijmegen: NICI, Nijmeegs Instituut voor Cognitie-onderzoek en …; 1991.
Varshney A, Puri S. A survey on human personality identification on the basis of handwriting using ANN. In: 2017 international conference on inventive systems and control (ICISC). IEEE; 2017.
Velay JL, Longcamp M. 07: Handwriting versus Typewriting: Behavioural and Cerebral Consequences in Letter Recognition, in Learning to write effectively: Current trends in European research. Brill; 2012. p. 371-373.
Singh P, Yadav H. Influence of neurodegenerative diseases on handwriting. Forensic Research & Criminology International Journal. 2021;9(3):110-114.
Bandyopadhyay A, Mukherjee B, Hazra A. Perception Based Decision Support System for Handwriting Behaviour Analysis. Procedia Computer Science. 2016;84:177-185.
Chaudhari K, Thakkar A. Survey on handwriting based personality trait identification. Expert systems with applications. 2019;124:282-308.
Singh P, Tanwar DK. Handwriting Differences in Individuals with Presence and Absence of Antisocial Behaviour. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development. 2021;6(1):1078-1114.
Roman KG. Studies on the Variability of Handwriting. The Development of Writing Speed and Point Pressure in School Children. The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology. 1936;49(1):139-160.
Dhall JK. Handwriting-based model for identification of developmental disorders among North Indian children. School Psychology International. 2016;37(1):51-63.
Mishra A. Handwriting Recognition using Neural Networks, Deep Learning and Support Vector Machines. Deep Learning and Support Vector Machines (March 4, 2021). 2021.
Maarse FJ, Van Galen GP, Thomassen AJ. Models for the generation of writing units in handwriting under variation of size, slant, and orientation. Human Movement Science. 1989;8(3):271-288.
Ray A, Carriquiry A, Ommen D. Relationships between Handwriting Slant and Demographic Feature. In: American Academy of Forensic Sciences. Virtual Conference. 2021.
Bal A, Saha R. An improved method for handwritten document analysis using segmentation, baseline recognition and writing pressure detection. Procedia Computer Science. 2016;93:403-415.
Pechwitz M, Margner V. Baseline estimation for Arabic handwritten words. In: Proceedings eighth international workshop on frontiers in handwriting recognition. IEEE; 2002.
Hashemi S, Vaseghi B, Torgheh F. Graphology for Farsi handwriting using image processing techniques. IOSR Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering. 2015;10(3):01-07.
Manmatha R, Srimal N. Scale space technique for word segmentation in handwritten documents. In: International conference on scale-space theories in computer vision. Springer; 1999.
Manmatha R, Han C, Riseman EM. Word spotting: A new approach to indexing handwriting. In: Proceedings CVPR IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE; 1996.
Wann J, Nimmo-Smith I. The control of pen pressure in handwriting: A subtle point. Hum Mov Sci. 1991;10(2- 3):223-246.
Harris TL, Rarick GL. The problem of pressure in handwriting. J Exp Educ. 1957;26(2):151-178.
Pfeiffer B, et al. Effectiveness of the size matters handwriting program. OTJR: Occup Particip Health. 2015;35(2):110-119.
Wing AM. The height of handwriting. Acta Psychol. 1980;46(2):141-151.
Barnett AL, et al. Development and standardization of a new handwriting speed test: The Detailed Assessment of Speed of Handwriting, in BJEP Monograph Series II, Number 6-Teaching and Learning Writing. British Psychological Society; 2009. p. 137-157.
Peverly ST. The importance of handwriting speed in adult writing. Dev Neuropsychol. 2006;29(1):197-216.
Pastor-Pellicer J, et al. Handwriting normalization by zone estimation using hmm/anns. In: 2014 14th International Conference on Frontiers in Handwriting Recognition. IEEE; 2014.
Guerfali W, Plamondon R. Normalizing and restoring on-line handwriting. Pattern Recognit. 1993;26(3):419- 431.
Zachry AH, et al. A comparison of print and cursive handwriting in fifth and sixth grade students: A pilot study. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2016;4(2):3.
Hagin RA. Write right—or left: A practical approach to handwriting. J Learn Disabil. 1983;16(5):266-271.
Meulenbroek RG, Van Galen GP. The production of connecting strokes in cursive writing: Developing co articulation in 8 to12 year-old children, in Computer recognition and human production of handwriting. World Scientific; 1989. p. 273-286.
Lin Z, Wan L. Style-preserving English handwriting synthesis. Pattern Recognit. 2007;40(7):2097-2109.
