Judgement issues affect many aspects of
our lives, including the future of our school-going children. The soundness
of judgements made by examination administrators gets more serious in public
high-stakes examinations where fairness on candidates is to be the most
prized virtue. This paper seeks to ascertain the nature of the gap between
current and desired practice of the Examinations Council of Eswatini (ECESWA) in
resolving candidates’ handwriting-based issues. The curiosity is on what law
in Eswatini recommends as best evidence of genuineness of disputed writing;
on how Eswatini schools resolve candidate handwriting issues; and on how
public examination bodies in the SADC region ensure that questioned writings
are resolved accurately and reliably. The theory of the individuality of
handwriting and the human factor theory underpinned the study. Standard
marking and Forensic Document Examination protocols served as a reference
for gauging ECESWA’s current practice. The inquiry involved a purposive
sample of key informants, eight school management members and eight test
development officials from SADC public examination bodies.The study revealed that ECESWA’s processes
of judging disputed handwriting are aligned to a larger extent with
international practice. The absence, however, of the relevant forensic skill
within the adjudicators, created a loophole that defined the gap. The study
recommends the capacitation of the jury or outsourcing of the service. On a
more preventative note, the candidate scripts could be rebranded by ECESWA
with candidates’ names prior to the examination day.
Accepted:26/04/2024
Published: 30/04/2024
*Corresponding Author
Sibusiso Mzenzi Masuku
E-mail: masuku.s@
examscouncil.org.sz
Keywords: forensic,
handwriting, public, examinations, judgement, gap analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Judgement
issues affect many aspects of our lives, including the future of our
school-going children. The soundness of judgement by examination administrators
gets more serious in public high-stakes examinations where fairness on
candidates is to be the most prized virtue. Ruling, by nature, requires the
comparison of an item or method of unknown standard to one whose standard is
known (Ofqual,
2014; Tate & Panteghini, 2007). Likewise, Forensic
Document Examiners (FDEs) use standard criteria to qualify questioned documents(Moris, 2000; Hicklin, 2022). Standardisation
then becomes the process of adopting the same procedures in order that
comparable client results are achieved. It is the intention of this paper to
examine the degree of closeness of methods of handling handwriting matters in
Eswatini’s public examinations’ administration to standard practice.
The
Examinations Council of Eswatini (ECESWA) is a corporate body established
through the Examinations Regulation of 1984, a product of the Education Act of
1981. Its mandate is to administer examinations and issue certificates to
Primary, Junior Secondary and Senior Secondary School graduates in Eswatini.
ECESWA, like all public assessment bodies, pays particular attention to issues
of fairness, validity, and reliability of their assessments. The fairness of an
exam can make the difference between students getting the grade they deserve
and a grade that does not reflect their knowledge and skills and that
difference can be life - changing (Oxford
University, 2022).
If
fairness is that important to examination bodies, clear ways of ascertaining
and mitigating its risk need to be put in place. One of such ways is managing
the number of errors made during the examination administration and marking
processes. Before candidate scripts are marked, the examination is written by
candidates at the schools where the invigilator on the day of the examination
is expected to conduct the examination in accordance with set ECESWA guidelines
that are detailed in the ECESWA Handbook for Centres.
The Candidate
register in the exam room has three columns drawn against each candidate’s
name. In the first column the candidate is confirmed present, through a tick,
by the invigilator. The second column, still under the invigilator’s
jurisdiction, confirms that the candidate’s script has been submitted in the examination
room and the last column confirms that the script has been seen and marked by
the Marker at the marking Centre.
Most of
the time invigilators make mistakes in following the handbook instructions. The
handbook states that the second column in the register should only be marked
present if the invigilator has seen the name and examination number of the
candidate script as opposed to merely seeing the face of the candidate. There
are common cases where markers come across two or more scripts with no identity
details. The Markers mark the scripts but fail to assign scores in the score
card. The Principal Examiner then reports the matter to the ECESWA office at
the marking Centre. The challenge then gets resolved by generating a specimen writing where the
Head of Centre, Invigilator and suspected candidate are called in to generate
specimen writing. This writing is then compared with the disputed writing. Conclusions
are then drawn and the issue “gets resolved”. The challenge is the degree of
accuracy and reliability of the steps leading to this conclusion. Specifically,
this study attempted to respond to the following questions:
1.What does law in Eswatini recommend as best
evidence of genuineness of disputed writing?
2.How do Eswatini schools arrive at handwriting
– examination conclusions?
3.How do public examination bodies in the
region ensure that questioned handwritings are resolved accurately and
reliably?
This research is centred on forensic
handwriting analysis.To understand the
complexities that come along with handwriting comparison and isolation of gaps
in current practices, the Forensic Document Examination Theory was considered,
right from its principles, methodologies, factors of handwriting variability,
and techniques used in comparing disputed writing with standards. Before
delving into the FDE theory, we found it necessary to argue for our operational
understanding of the construct: gap analysis.
Witkins (1984) defined “gap analysis” as
the discrepancy between current and desired performance which can be
prioritized based on the cost of meeting the need and that of ignoring it. Gap analysis, in Kim and Ji (2018)’s view is
either a tool or a process to identify where gaps are and what differences
exist between an organization’s current situation and “what ought to be” in
place. English and Kaufman (1975) in their focus on curriculum development
described gap analysis as an empirical exercise which is not the innovation but
an practice-based method for determining if the innovation is necessary and/or
desirable. From what these authors perceive of gap analysis, our study postulates
that gap analysis is an empirical method for establishing if innovation is
needed based on comparing the current state of performance with the desired
one.
The Forensic Document Examination Theory reveals that the
work of an FDE is different from that of a Graphologist whose focus is on
reading the personality traits that manifest through handwriting(Konnikova,
2014).There is
need, nowadays, for expert testimony to be supplemented with scientific
methodology when it comes to handwriting court cases(Srihari,
Cha, Arora, & Lee, 2002). The scope of
forensics besides focusing on DNA tests and fingerprints as unique tracers of
human marks, further embraces handwriting(Doug,
2019). Several authors
have confirmed the handwriting individuality principle and have agreed that its
statement carries the gist that no two writers share the same combination of
handwriting features given sufficient quantity and quality of writing to compare
(Harrison,
Burkes, & Seiger, 2009; Srihari, Cha, Arora, & Lee, 2002; Srihari,
Juang, & Srinivasan, 2008; Osborn, 1929)
Since judgement errors are human by
nature, the human factors theory was also considered where it was found that
the accuracy and reliability of human judgment could be improved through
optimising human competence, cognitive biases, and perceptual abilities.
Literature also reveals that rushed decisions and ability/demand
mismatch are the major sources of decision-making errors(Kirwan, 1998).
Standardisation
and Quality Assurance Frameworks serve as the basis for making sure that
processes leading to forensic conclusions are consistent, reliable, and
transparent. The American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE) and
the International Graphonomics Society (IGS) were considered towards
establishing the degree to which current ECESWA practices are aligned to
standard handwriting analysis practice. For standard handwriting analysis
practice Harrison, Burkes & Seiger (2009); Riley (2023)’s model revealed
that FDE’s work was comparable to the Public Examination Markers’ work.Zhu & Han (2011)’s Finland model for
marking candidates’ scripts was found to embrace most of the steps taken by
Eswatini public examination markers.
Forensic handwriting examination studies
dominated the twentieth century’s sixth to last decade, with a particular
reference and appreciation of conforming to the copybook, the use of
handwriting to interpret personalities and to the individuality of handwriting(Black, 1970; Franks, 1985; Shannon, 1979; Gomez - Jimenez,
2015). While appreciating the individuality of
handwriting, it might help to realise that handwriting variations are possible
within the same individual.
With a team of 11 co-authors, Hicklin (2022) conducted a
five-year study that involved 86 Forensic Document Examiners (FDE) who looked
at 100 pairs of scripts. About 7000 conclusions from this study were drawn
through a five-Likert conclusion scale. The study involved the Analysis,
Comparison, Evaluation and Verification (ACEV) method of data handling. According
to this study both the questioned and the known writing needs to: (a) be
original; be freely and naturally prepared; and contain a sufficient quantity
and quality of writing. In addition, the composition of the FDEs needs to
reflect a rich mix of relevant skill. In the Eswatini context upskilling the
workforce and teaching towards competencies has been strongly recommended at
educational policy level (Marope,
2010)
Forensic
Document Examination has also been researched extensively over the 20th
and 21st century. In 2013 for instance, the ability of Arabic
writers to simulate elements in signatures was investigated where it emerged
that adults were significantly less accurate in simulating line form and
proportion while they were more accurate in simulating line quality than young
people(Alkahtani, 2013). In the same year an attempt to
embrace the emerging digital age was then focused on the analysis of digital
signatures and how it posed challenges to the practice of FDEs(Harralson, 2013). Forensic
Handwriting Examiners are different from lay people who only can differentiate
gross features of handwriting such as letter formation, size, and slope of the
handwriting. The experts go further to looking into size and slope of writing,
pen pressure, pen lifts, the spacing between words and letters, the position of
the writing on the baseline, height relationships, beginning and ending
strokes, and line quality(Harrison,
Burkes, & Seiger, 2009).
The
characteristics FDEs focus on, when comparing handwritings, are the subtle,
subconscious habits of the writer such as writing in relation to baseline; the
overall formation of the letters; the heights of letters in relation to one
another; the manner of connecting letters; the size and spacing of letters; the
beginning and ending of strokes; and pen pressure(Hicklin, 2022; Nye & Sood, 2018).
Forensic Document Examination despite lacking in
objectivity in the past has now been made more quantitative, objective and data
driven through quantitative models that permit automation (Riley
& Eisenhart, 2023). Such
initiatives bring huge relief to the teacher or educational assessor since it
brings their attention back to their core mandate of teaching and evaluating
candidates’ performances. The
context in Eswatini as highlighted in several media reports, indicates that
there is no public forensic science laboratory in the country except one at the
police college which is not yet fully equipped(Mhlongo,
2020). These media
reports together with the data from tertiary institutions indicates a gap in
the popularity of the idea of forensic science in the country, let alone an
understanding of the roles of FDEs and the value they add to public examination
contexts.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A descriptive research paradigm viewed from the purpose of research
perspective was adopted leading to a qualitative survey design. All ECESWA
stakeholders were considered as the population for this study. The researcher
then sampled purposively with focus on stakeholder relevance to handwriting
issue resolution. Data were then collected from a key informant that was
nominated by the Law Society. A face-to-face interview was conducted with this
participant. The data they gave was then triangulated with a desk review of the
legal documents that were linked to forensic handwriting examination. Heads of
Examinations in both primary and secondary schools were also purposively
sampled and telephonically interviewed. The criteria were to have two per
region, one from rural and the other from urban settings as summarised in table
1. The names of the participants and their schools were kept anonymous for
ethical reasons.
There was also the condition of ensuring that members in the total
sample were representative of both secondary and primary schools. Open ended
questionnaires with telephonic follow ups were also run with participants
representing each of the SADC public examinations. In collecting data from the
Eswatini case, the researcher assumed a participant observer role throughout
the data collection process where the process of concluding handwriting issues
was observed and probed. Data were analysed thematically as they got collected.
The interview schedules were validated by two randomly selected ECESWA
test design staff members. The questionnaire that was sent to the SADC
examination boards was first piloted with ten purposely selected ECESWA staff
members.
Table
1: School Participants
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section focuses of three parts: the
recommendations of the Eswatini law on the best evidence of genuineness of
disputed writing, schools’ viewpoints on how handwriting cases could be
resolved and the practice landscape of dealing with handwriting cases in the
SADC region.
Law in Eswatini that Recommends the Best
Evidence of Genuineness of Disputed Writing.
The lawyer’s response was gathered and probed
leading to the data below: The excerpts are the participant’s own words. “You
need to use experts, avoid doing the comparisons yourselves, the irrelevance of
your credentials weakens the evidence in the end. (After probing) Judging
handwriting yields stronger evidence in a court if done by an expert. The
expert in our understanding is somebody who is suitably qualified and will
involve different handwriting samples before drawing a conclusion. The
experience, qualifications, of the expert and objectivity of the approach to
judging earns this expert’s report the desired credibility in a court of law.”
The theme that emerged from this data set was
that a suitably qualified person should judge or lead the judging team. A
further observation was made from scrutinising the set of relevant documents
recommended by the law society. The Eswatini Criminal Law and Procedure Act 67
of 1938 subsection 230 was found to be the most relevant where stated: “Comparison
of a disputed writing with any writing proved to the satisfaction of the court,
or of a magistrate holding a preparatory examination, to be genuine may be made
by the court or magistrate, as evidence of the genuineness or otherwise of the
writing dispute.” The content theme with the Eswatini Criminal Law and
Procedure Act 67 of 1938 subsection 230 was found to be conveying a recommendation
in favour of the comparison of handwritings.
Such competence, among the current staff compliment needs
to be supplemented through the competency-based approach that Marope (2010) alluded
to in the world bank report assessing the efficiency of Eswatini Educational
System. Beside adopting this approach, the fact that the 4IR is already in
session and its dictates are already putting pressure on current workforces to
upskill, multitask and reskill. We therefore assert that this is where the
teacher and the examiner within the education system of Eswatini belong: in the
era where the best move is to upgrade the skills we had when first got employed
so that we keep our existence in the 4IR job market.
HOW SCHOOLS ARRIVE AT HANDWRITING –
EXAMINATION CONCLUSIONS
When asked about how they handled handwriting
dilemmas, the Eswatini school leaders, remarked verbatim that: “The number of
reported handwriting dilemmas at the primary school level is less that at the
secondary school. The primary schools regret the dwindling handwriting
standards attributing that change to reduced teacher motivation towards
handwriting, particularly at the lower grades. Sometimes pupils vary their
handwriting size and style to accommodate either the pressure of not having
enough content or that of having too much content.
One deputy headteacher from the Manzini
sub-urban area indicated that: “We do encounter handwriting challenges
especially where it variates within the same script. We do not rush to call it malpractice
but note that sometimes: When hesitant about answer the student writes faint
and with a wobbly handwriting. Now within the same script when they see a
familiar question they begin to write with normal and more legible handwriting.
So somehow it is linked to how they feel about the question. On essays if they
are given a fixed page to write on and they know very little, they amplify
their handwriting so that they fill the requested page. It might happen that as
they near ¾ of the page new ideas come up, they will then change the
handwriting and write small where the letters become sharp and compact to match
their tension and desire to fill the page”.
The results led to the finding that as candidates
stress over running out of content to write up to expected page margins, their
handwriting changes and grows sharper and more compact. The finding confirms
the graphology theory highlighted by Gomez-Jimenez (2015) that handwriting vary
with human emotional states. This finding has the implication on the criteria
that markers use to identify a suspected handwriting-based malpractice. This
matter does not only require objective criteria to be availed, but it also
requires that such criteria be documented on ECESWA policies and consistently
applied.
This point links well with the fact
that currently, ECESWA relies on the marker’s professional judgment of what ends
up being tagged as suspected malpractice. The strength, however, on this
current practice is that the marker then escalates the matter to an authorised
ECESWA officer for further evaluation. There is, however, still a gap in that
though there are hierarchies of viewing and hypothesising on the suspected
malpractice, in the absence of a clearly articulated model of evaluating the
suspected script judgment error is likely to occur. The relevance of the skill the
evaluators of the script have, might also increase the chance of error,
especially after Kirwan (1998) noted that rushed
decisions and ability/demand mismatch were the major sources of decision-making
errors.
Teachers also proposed that they check
the handwriting with other subjects to identify the name of the author of the
questioned script. This is corroborated by the evidence from how they deal with
similar situations in Namibia as confirmed by the data collected through the
third research question. This is a scenario where the schools are recommending
something that other examination boards in the region are already practising,
yet the local examination board has not yet visibly began practising it.
According to how Kim and Ji (2018) defined gap analysis, there is a gap in that
current ECESWA practice is to involve the school in resolving the handwriting
case, yet there is a recommendation from the schools that we first check across
other marking committees besides the one where the query originated (subjects).
This implies ECESWA needs to pilot the approach for effectiveness and value for
money both to the organisation and its major stakeholder – the head teacher.
HOW PUBLIC EXAMINATION BODIES IN THE REGION
ENSURE THAT THEIR FORENSIC HANDWRITING – BASED DECISIONS ARE ACCURATE AND
RELIABLE.
The
collected data is summarised in table 2. Seven of these countries’ participants
were interviewed and most of them (six of seven) experienced the handwriting
dilemmas during their marking. Malawi even indicated that these concerns were
frequently within and across script disciplines. These were generally resolved
through side-by-side comparison between the known and the questioned
handwriting. The DNEA from Namibia reported that they considered the side-by-side
comparison as a last resort; they first identified the script from other
syllabus components where they still followed the sided-by-side comparison of known
to unknown handwriting. In their own words, the Namibian participant even highlighted
more aspects of the challenge they face:
“We
also come across such challenges. We check with the other subjects that the
candidate sat for, compare handwriting from the other subjects’ papers after
proper investigation has been done and candidates narrowed down”.
This
approach to tracing the authorship of the script has also been recommended by
one of the schools earlier in this report.
Table 2:
SADC Members Responses
Existence of handwriting dilemmas
from Scripts?
Categories of how the dilemmas are
managed
Botswana
Yes
The
discretion of the Subject Officer on the matter is prioritised.
Eswatini
Yes
Side
by side comparison by subject officer. If unresolved, involved the
headteacher and invigilator in a face-to-face interview.
Lesotho
Yes
The
discretion of the Subject Officer on the matter is prioritised.
Malawi
Yes
Side
by side comparison by subject officer. If unresolved then check with other
marking committees
Namibia
Yes
Side
by side comparison by subject officer. If unresolved then check with other
marking committees
Zambia
Yes
Side
by side comparison by subject officer.
Zimbabwe
Yes
Side
by side comparison by subject officer.
Tanzania
Very rare
They
rarely occur as the cause of omitted names is eliminated from when the
candidate submit their script. The process is coded and given high vigilance
by the school and invigilators.
THE
QUALITY OF THE GAP
The
dimensions of the quality of the steps leading to quality conclusions on
handwriting issues emerged from data as the standard, the evaluator –
evaluation panel - performance evidence, Comparison, Conclusion, Frequency, and
type summary as well as Extent of Deviation from Standard and Levels of
Evidence.
The Standard
The
comparison of ECESWA’s model of concluding handwriting cases against Zhu & Han (2011) and Harison et al (2023) shows
that a standard sample to gauge the disputed writing against is necessary. In
the Finland marking context, this specimen is the marking scheme, while in
forensics it is the specimen. This standard is a result of standardisation,
where all members of the jury or marking committee in the case of marking
discuss the standard until all those who will be implementing it have common
understanding. The current practice at the ECESWA marking Centres shows that
the standard is the text that is produced by the validated suspect. So in terms
of practice there appears to be no gap in practice.
Evaluator, Evaluation Panel and
Performance Evidence
The
evaluator from the legal expert and the schools feedback needs to be suitably
qualified. In Finland Zhu and Han (2011) noted that it was required that makers
are suitably qualified. In addition, it emerged that the Jury composition also
needs to have a diverse pull of experts. The performance evidence according to
these authors is necessary. In the marking the candidate script serves as
concrete evidence that the candidate attempted the examination, while in
Forensic Document Examination, the evidence is the disputed writing. The
current practice shows that the performance evidence exists as the questioned
writing that the Principal Examiners will pick up and submit to the office at
the marking centre. This then highlights that for this dimension, ECESWA’s
practice is airtight.
Comparison, Conclusion, Frequency, and
type summary
Comparison
involves imposing the marking scheme over the candidate’s work, while with
Forensic Document Examination, the specimen is superimposed over the disputed
writing before degrees of deviation are noted. ECESWA’s practice currently
involves juxtaposition of the specimen writing with the questioned writing,
where the jury use common sense and professional judgment to identify
deviations in forms and other glaring features of the handwriting. The gap
between standard practice and that of ECESWA is identified in line with
Harrison, Burkes and Sieger (2009)’s assertion that lay people only
differentiate gross features of handwriting such as letter formation, size, and
slope, whilst experts go father to looking at pen pressure and pen lifts and
the spacing between words and letters.
The
raw score is converted to percentage at both the marking and Forensic Document
Examination stage. The current ECESWA practice, however, at this stage fails to
happen since in the previous stage, the specimen is not superimposed but
juxtaposed against the disputed writing. This is a gap in practice.
The
levels of gathered evidence are categorised into strong, medium, and weak,
where symbols A*, A and B belong to the strong evidence level, symbols C, D and
E the medium level and lastly F, G and H fall under the weak level. The same
levels of evidence exist with Forensic Document Examinations. ECESWA practice,
however, reaches this stage but the levels are cast subjectively.
The
study has revealed that ECESWA’s processes of judging disputed handwriting are
aligned to a larger extent with international practice. The approach adopted is
on the right direction but the absence of relevant skill within the Jury,
created a loophole that sums up the gap. This challenge can possibly be
overcome by choosing to capacitate the jury or outsource the service. On a more
preventative note, the candidates can be made to write on an answer script with
a name and centre number that has been typed below.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The
study has revealed that ECESWA’s processes of judging disputed handwriting are
aligned to a larger extent with international practice. The absence, however,
of relevant skill within the adjudicators, created a loophole that sums up the
gap. This challenge can possibly be overcome by choosing to capacitate the jury
or outsource the service. On a more preventative note, the candidate scripts
could be rebranded by ECESWA with candidates’ names. The process towards making
the conclusion, often involved Heads of Centre travelling long distances from
their Centres to the marking centres. Evidence from the schools and the SADC
region highlights that the issue of bringing the stakeholders to vouch for the
identity of the candidate could be mitigated by first searching with
counterpart marking committees before calling the principal, invigilator and
student.
AUTHOR’S
BIOGRAPHY
Sibusiso
Masuku holds an M.Ed. degree in Curriculum Studies and Teaching from the
University of Eswatini and an M.Sc. degree in Mathematical Modelling from the
University of Zimbabwe, a B.Sc. in Mathematics and Chemistry from the
University of Eswatini, A Post Graduate Certificate in Education from the
University of Eswatini and a Project Management Certificate from the University
of Cape Town. He taught Senior Secondary Mathematics and Physical Science for 10
years at IGCSE and Matric (IEB) Level before joining the National Curriculum
Centre, a role he served for 5 years before assuming his current job at the
Examinations Council of Eswatini. His
research niche is in scientific reasoning and quality assurance of public
examinations processes such as marking. He currently serves the Examinations
Council of Eswatini as a Research Manager within the Test Development
Department.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The test development department of ECESWA as well as the Examinations
Administration departments played a major role in the in the conception of this
study. We also wish to thank the Eswatini Principals Association through their
2023 conference for creating the opportunity for this paper to be appraised
prior to its publication. Our counterparts at the regional level are also
greatly acknowledged for the cooperation at the benchmarking level as the study
evolved.
REFERENCES
Alkahtani, A. A. (2013).
Age-related Statistical Difference in the Ability of Arabic Wirters to
Simulate Elements in Arabic Signatures. Journal of Forensic Document
Examination.
Biggs, D. (2016). The Influence of Handwriting on Assessment. Educational
Research, 13(1), 50-55. doi:10.1080/0013188700130107
Black, D. A. (1970). Identifying Ball Pens by Blurr striations. Journal
of Criminal Law, Criminology and Political Science, 331-340.
Caravolas, M., Cameron, D., Catrin, L. H., & Wayne, C. (2020).
Handwriting Legibility and its relationship to Spelling Ability and Age:
Evidence from Monolingual and Bilingual Children. Psychology, 212 -
254.
Doug, R. (2019). Handwriting: Developing Pupils' Indentity and Cognitive
Skills. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 7(2).
doi:10.7575
Franks, J. (1985). Variability of Stroke Direction between Left and
Right-handed Writers. 353 - 370.
Gomez - Jimenez, E. (2015). An Introduction to Graphology: Definition,
Theoretical Background and Levels of Analysis. A Journal of English and
American Studies, 71-85.
Harralson, H. (2013). Developments and Signature Identification in the
Digital Age. Journal of Forensic Document Examination.
Harrison, D., Burkes, T., & Seiger, D. P. (2009). Handwriting
Examination: Meeting the Challenges of Science and Law. Forensic Science
Communications, 11(4).
Hicklin, R. (2022, August 1). Accuracy and Reliability of Forensic
Handwriting Comparisons. (Weitz. D, Ed.) PNAS, 119(32).
doi:10.1073/pnas
Kim, S., & Ji, Y. (2018). Gap Analysis. Peking.
Kirwan, B. (1998). Human Error Identification techniques for risk
assessment of high risk systems - Part 2: Towards a framework approach. Applied
Ergonomics, 29(5), 299-318. doi:10.1016/s0003-6870998000011-8
Konnikova, M. (2014). Does Handwriting Matter. New York: New York
Times.
Majgaard, K., Mingat, A., & Louis, J. (2012). Education in
sub-Saharan Africa: a Comparative Analysis. New York: World Bank.
Marope, M. (2010). The Education System in Swaziland: Training and
skills Development for Shared Growth and Competitiveness. New York: World
Bank.
Mhlongo, N. (2020, February 24). Justice Delayed as No Forensic Lab. Times
of Eswatini, pp. 25-26.
Moris. (2000). Forensic Handwriting Identification: Fundamental
Concepts and Principles. New York: Academic Press.
Nye, J., & Sood, D. (2018). Teachers' Perceptions of Needs and
Supports for Handwriting Instruction in Kindergarten. The Open Journal of
Occupational Therapy, 6(2). doi:https://doi.org/10.15453/2168-6408.1411
Ofqual. (2014). Standardisation Methods, Mark Schemes and their
Impact on Marking Reliability. London: The Office of Qualifications and
Examination Regulations.
Osborn, A. S. (1929). Questioned Documents. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Oxford University. (2022). The science behind fair assessment.
London: Oxford International AQA Examinations.
Riley, P. B., & Eisenhart, S. (2023). Capturing High-Resolution
Digital Images for use in Forensic Document Examination. Journal of
Forensic Sciences, 1 -24.
Shannon, B. (1979). Graphological Patterns as a Function of Handedness
and Culture. Neuropsychologia, 17(5), 453-465.
Sheffield, B. (1996). Handwriting: A Neglected Cornerstone of Literacy. Anals
of Dyslexia, 21-35.
Srihari, S. N., Cha, S. H., Arora, H., & Lee, S. (2002).
Individuality of Handwriting. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 47, 856 -
872.
Srihari, S., Juang, C., & Srinivasan, H. (2008). On the
discrimination of the handwriting of twins. Journal of Forensic Sciences,
53, 430 - 446.
Tate, J., & Panteghini, M. (2007, August). Standardisation - The
Theory and the Practice. Clinical BioChemical Review, 28(3), 93-96.
Wiley, R. W. (2021). The Effects of Handwriting Experience on Literacy
Learning. Psychological Science, 1086 - 1103.
doi:10.1177/0956797621993111
Witkin, B. (1984). Planning and Conducting Needs Assessment a
Practical Guide. London: Sage.
Cite this Article: Masuku, SM (2024). A Gap Analysis for
the Accuracy and Reliability of Forensic Handwriting Comparisons towards
Candidate Script Identification in Eswatini.Greener Journal of Educational Research,
14(1): 27-34.
