1. Saudek R. Experiments with handwriting. Sacramento, CA: Books For Professionals; 1978.
2. Harralson HH, Miller LS. Huber and Headrick’s handwriting identification: facts and fundamentals. CRC Press; 2018. p. 67, 76, 99, 103.
3. Harrison WR. Suspect documents: their scientific examination. Nelson-Hall Publishers; 1981. p. 288, 291, 295, 311, 315, 342.
4. Osborn AS. Questioned documents. 2nd ed. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Co; 1929. p. 169-170.
5. Merriam-Webster. Signature 2024 [cited 2024 Jul 8]. Available from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/signature
6. Conway J. Evidential documents. Illinois: Charles C. Thomas; 1959. p. 12-13.
7. Mohammed L, Found BJ, Rogers DK. Frequency of signature styles in San Diego County.Journal of the American society of questioned document examiners. 2008 Jun 1;11(1).
8. Mohammed LA, Found B, Caligiuri M, Rogers D. The dynamic character of disguise behavior for textbased, mixed, and stylized signatures. J Forensic Sci. 2011;56, Suppl 1:S136-41.
9. M erriam-Webster. Complex. 2024 [cited 2024 Jul 8]. Available from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complex
10. Pelli DG, Burns CW, Farell B, Moore-Page DC. Feature detection and letter identification. Vision Res. 2006;46(28):4646-4674.
11. Brault JJ, Plamondon R. A complexity measure of handwritten curves: modeling of dynamic signature forgery. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 1993;23(2):400-413.
12. Found B, Rogers D. A consideration of the theoretical basis of handwriting examination: the application of “complexity theory” to understand the basis of handwriting identification. Int J Forensic Doc Examiners. 1998;4:109-118.
13. Angel M, Kelly JS, editors. Forensic document examination in the 21st century. CRC Press; 2020. p. 111-118.
14. Fairhurst MC, Kaplani E, Guest RM. Complexity measures in handwritten signature verification. In: Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (UAHCI); 2001. p. 305-309.
15. Allen M. Foundations of forensic document analysis: theory and practice. Wiley Blackwell; 2016. p. 68.
16. Dewhurst T, Found B, Rogers D. Are expert penmen better than lay people at producing simulations of a model signature? Forensic Sci Int. 2008;180(1):50-53.
17. Foote C. Auto-simulation: a study of self-forgery versus disguise. Paper presented at: Fall conference of the Southwestern Association of Forensic Document Examiners; Breckenridge, Colorado; 1998.
18. Alewijnse LC, van den Heuvel CE, Stoel RD. Analysis of signature complexity. J Forensic Doc Examin. 2011;21:37-49.
19. Pepe A, Rogers DK, Sita JC. A cognitive look into simulations of high and low complexity signatures. In: Advances in graphonomics. Proceedings of the 15th Biennial Conference of the International Graphonomics Society. Mexico; 2011. p. 136-139.
20. Pepe A, Rogers D, Sita J. A consideration of signature complexity using simulators’ gaze behavior. J Forensic Doc Examin. 2012;22:5-13.
21. Scurich N, Angel M, Stern H, Thompson WC. How signature complexity affects expert and lay ability to distinguishgenuine, disguised, and simulated signatures. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 69(6), 2159-2170.
22. Sharma P, Singh M, Jasuja OP. Forensic examination of electronic signatures: a comparative study. Nowa Kodyfikacja Prawa Karnego. 2021;59:149-184.
23. Angel M, Caligiuri M, Cavanaugh M. Kinematic models of subjective complexity in handwritten signatures. J Am Soc Quest Doct Exam. 2017:20(2):3-10.
24. Hilton O. Scientific examination of questioned documents. CRC Press; 1992. p. 20.
25. Dewhurst T, Found B, Rogers D. The relationship between quantitatively modeled signature complexity levels and forensic document examiners’ qualitative opinions on casework. J Forensic Doc Examin. 2007;18:21-40.
26. Dewhurst TN, Ballantyne KN, Found B. Exploring the significance of pen lifts as predictors of signature simulation behavior. J Am Soc Questioned Doc Examin. 2015;18(2):3-15.
27. Mohammed LA. Forensic examination of signatures. Academic Press; 2019. p. 50-60.
28. Sita JC, Rogers D, Found B. A model using complexity, spatial score, and line quality for forensic signature comparison. In: Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the International Graphonomics Society. Scottsdale, Arizona; 2003. p. 257-260.
29. Kent State University Libraries. (n.d.). One-Sample t-Test: SPSS tutorials. Kent State University. https://libguides.library.kent.edu/SPSS/OneSampletTest
30. Ross A, Willson VL. Basic and advanced statistical tests: writing results sections and creating tables and figures. Springer; 2018.