aceForensic analysis of dominant versus non-dominant handwriting: Statistical and machine learning insights
Systematic, paired quantitative evidence on how handwriting changes when the non-dominant hand is used remains limited in forensic document examination, despite its frequent relevance in cases involving disguise and authorship concealment. This study presents the first large-scale within-writer analysis examining general and individual handwriting characteristics using statistical testing and predictive modeling. Handwriting samples were collected from 94 right-handed participants, each of whom produced the same…
Supervised logistic regression distinguished dominant versus non-dominant handwriting with 92.98% test accuracy using execution-quality features, providing quantitative benchmarks to support forensic evaluation of suspected off-hand disguise.
Findings are limited to right-handed writers producing the same standardized text in a controlled collection, not varied real-world disguise scenarios or left-handed writers.
Evidence
- Peer-reviewedJournal of Forensic Sciences2026-08-25
How should this claim be treated?
Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-0889, v1: “Forensic analysis of dominant versus non-dominant handwriting: Statistical and machine learning insights.” Truvace, 2026-08-26. /record/TRV-2026-0889 (accessed at citation time). sha256 4f5c688200f09cc1…
Calibration history
Every change to this record since certification, in the open. None yet — the reading has held since it entered the record.
Certified into the record
How to verify without trusting this page
Fetch the canonical text of any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-0889 and hash it yourself — for example shasum -a 256 on the saved canonical field. The result must equal content_hash, and each version’s text ends with prev:followed by the prior version’s hash (version 1 chains to 64 zeros). If a single character of any version had been altered since certification, the chain would not reproduce.