Article review

 

APA 7th Edition Formatting- Title Page and References

Title page, reference page, and in-text citations are completed correctly 

APA 7th Edition Formatting- Font, spacing, headers, margins

12 point Times font, double-spaced, headers formatted correctly

Purpose of article

Description of participants and setting of study

Should include age, functioning level, diagnoses, gender of participants. Where did study take place?

Design of study

What type of single case design was used to evaluate the treatment? (e.g., reversal, MBL)

Target behaviors

List the dependent variables (which are the target behaviors) AND operationally define the behaviors

Overview of Procedures

Explain/summarize the procedures. This should be written so that once I read it, I am able to know what happened in baseline, in treatment A, in treatment B, etc. Should be about a paragraph or so.

Results

MOST IMPORTANT PART! You should explain to me what happened in the graphs shown in the article. Walk me through what happened to the target behavior for the participant’s across baseline, treatment, reversal, follow-up, etc.

NEED TO VISUALLY ANALYZE THE DATA-tell me what happened with level, trend, variability,

Should be about 1-2 paragraphs.

Limitations

List at least 2 limitations to the study/findings. The authors usually list at least 2 in the article.

Implications

Tell me what this study and these findings added to the body of literature on the topic in particular but also to the field. Why does this study matter? What made it special enough to be published?

COMPARISON OF A STIMULUS EQUIVALENCE PROTOCOL AND
TRADITIONAL LECTURE FOR TEACHING SINGLE-SUBJECT DESIGNS

SADIE LOVETT, RUTH ANNE REHFELDT, YORS GARCIA, AND JOHNNA DUNNING

SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY

This study compared the effects of a computer-based stimulus equivalence protocol to a
traditional lecture format in teaching single-subject experimental design concepts to
undergraduate students. Participants were assigned to either an equivalence or a lecture group,
and performance on a paper-and-pencil test that targeted relations among the names of
experimental designs, design definitions, design graphs, and clinical vignettes was compared.
Generalization of responding to novel graphs and novel clinical vignettes, as well as the
emergence of a topography-based tact response after selection-based training, were evaluated for
the equivalence group. Performance on the paper-and-pencil test following teaching was
comparable for participants in the equivalence and lecture groups. All participants in the
equivalence group showed generalization to novel graphs, and 6 participants showed
generalization to novel clinical vignettes. Three of the 4 participants demonstrated the
emergence of a topography-based tact response following training on the stimulus equivalence
protocol.

Key words: stimulus equivalence, college students, tact, verbal behavior, topography-based
responding

_______________________________________________________________________________

Behaviorally based instructional protocols
grounded in the principles of stimulus equiva-
lence can provide instructors with an alternative
method of communicating their subject matter
of interest to students. The hallmark of stimulus
equivalence protocols is that direct training on
certain relations among instructional stimuli
will result in the emergence of untrained
relations among those stimuli (Sidman, 1994).
Early research that examined this phenomenon
focused on teaching reading comprehension
and oral reading skills to individuals with
intellectual disabilities (Sidman, 1971). For
example, Sidman and Cresson (1973) used a
stimulus equivalence protocol to teach an
individual to read three-letter words, such as
‘‘cow.’’ The learner was first trained to relate the
spoken word ‘‘cow’’ to a picture of a cow and to
relate the spoken word ‘‘cow’’ to the printed
word cow. After training, the learner was then
able to orally name the picture of the cow and

the printed word cow, and he was able to relate
the picture of the cow to the printed word cow
without a direct history of reinforcement for
relating those stimuli. According to the stimulus
equivalence paradigm, the oral naming of the
picture and printed word, which involves a
reversal of the trained relation, is referred to as
symmetry. The relation of the printed word and
the picture that had never been previously
paired is referred to as transitivity.

Instruction using the principles of stimulus
equivalence has been applied successfully in
a variety of situations. Cowley, Green, and
Braunling-McMorrow (1992) taught adults with
acquired brain injuries to relate the dictated
names of their therapists to photographs of the
therapists and to relate the dictated therapist
names to the written therapist names. Partici-
pants then related the photographs to the written
therapist names and orally named the therapists
when shown the photographs without further
training. An investigation by Lynch and Cuvo
(1995) used a stimulus equivalence protocol to
teach fifth- and sixth-grade students relations
between pictorial representations of fractions and
numerical fraction ratios and relations between

Address correspondence to Ruth Anne Rehfeldt,
Behavior Analysis and Therapy Program, Rehabilitation
Institute, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois
62901 (e-mail: rehfeldt@siu.edu).

doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-

819

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2011, 44, 819–833 NUMBER 4 (WINTER 2011)

819

printed decimals and pictorial representations of
fractions. Following training, students related the
numerical fraction ratios to the appropriate printed
decimals. A recent study by Toussaint and Tiger
(2010) examined the use of a stimulus equivalence
protocol to teach braille literacy to children with
degenerative visual impairments. Participants who
were able to relate a spoken letter name to the
printed letter were trained to relate braille letters
and the corresponding printed letters. Participants
then were able to select the appropriate braille
letter when provided with the spoken letter name
and orally name the braille letters.

These examples of the application of stimulus
equivalence in teaching various skills highlight its
utility as an instructional method. Studies of
stimulus equivalence frequently involve training
and testing with a conditional discrimination
procedure that relies on selection-based respond-
ing, or pointing to one stimulus that is presented
in an array (Michael, 1985). The emergence of
topography-based responding, or responding in a
different topography than that trained, also has
been documented (Michael, 1985). Following
selection-based training, Cowley et al. (1992)
demonstrated the emergence of a tact response,
which is a verbal response under the control of a
nonverbal stimulus (Skinner, 1957), by showing
that participants were able to name the photo-
graphs of the therapists. Furthermore, Toussaint
and Tiger (2010) documented a topography-
based tact response by demonstrating the emer-
gence of oral naming of the braille letters. The
topography-based responding shown in these
studies may reflect the acquisition of more
meaningful verbal repertoires than selection-based
responding produces (Sundberg & Sundberg,
1990), because skills commonly targeted in
education, such as speaking and writing, require
topography-based rather than selection-based
responding. A successful educational curriculum
will result in proficiency in both spoken and
written topography-based response repertoires.

In recent years, stimulus equivalence proto-
cols have been extended to the instruction of

sophisticated learners (e.g., Fienup & Critchfield,
2010). Ninness et al. (2005, 2006) used
computer-based stimulus equivalence protocols
to teach algebraic and trigonometric mathemat-
ical functions. Participants were taught to relate
standard mathematical formulas to factored
formulas and to relate factored formulas to
graphical representations of those formulas. After
training, participants related the standard for-
mulas and the graphs without direct training,
and generalization to novel formulas and graphs
was shown. Fields et al. (2009) taught statistical
interaction concepts by training college students
to relate line graphs and textual descriptions of
interactions, textual descriptions of interactions
and labels of the interactions, and interaction
labels and definitions of each type of interaction.
The emergence of untrained relations among the
stimuli was shown, as was generalization of
responding to novel variations of the trained
stimuli. In addition, a study by Fienup, Covey,
and Critchfield (2010) used stimulus equivalence
to teach relations among regions of the brain,
anatomical locations of brain regions, and
psychological function of brain regions to college
undergraduates. Finally, Walker, Rehfeldt, and
Ninness (2010) taught college students to relate
the names, definitions, causes, and treatments for
disabilities. In addition to demonstrating the
emergence of untrained relations, this study
showed the emergence of written and vocal
topography-based responding following selec-
tion-based training.

The aforementioned research indicates that
instruction with stimulus equivalence protocols
is successful in teaching relations among
stimuli, including complex stimuli that are
important in training advanced learners. How-
ever, there has been little effort to compare the
efficacy of stimulus equivalence protocols to
standard educational practices or to assess the
social validity of the instructional method. One
exception is Fields et al. (2009), who evaluated
generalization to a paper-and-pencil posttest
following computer-based training. The use of

820 SADIE LOVETT et al.

worksheets and paper tests, as opposed to
computer-based procedures, more closely ap-
proximates the materials and procedures present
in the average classroom. Fields et al. also
included a questionnaire to assess the social
validity of the instructional method (see also
Fienup & Critchfield, 2011).

Further investigations of the efficacy and
acceptability of stimulus equivalence protocols
in instruction relative to standard educational
practices would be beneficial in determining the
utility of the method. The objectives of the
present study were thus as follows: First, we
compared the effectiveness of a stimulus
equivalence protocol to that of a lecture in
teaching undergraduate students concepts of
single-subject experimental design. The proto-
col established relations among the names of
designs, their definitions, representative graphs,
and clinical vignettes in which the use of a
design might be appropriate. Specifically, we
compared performances for the two groups of
participants on a paper-and-pencil test. Second,
we evaluated the efficacy of the stimulus
equivalence protocol by assessing generalization
of the relations to novel graphs and clinical
vignettes and the emergence of a topography-
based repertoire. Finally, we investigated the
social validity of the stimulus equivalence
protocol and the lecture by administering a
satisfaction questionnaire to participants in
both conditions at the end of the experiment.

METHOD

Participants, Setting, and Apparatus

Twenty-four undergraduate students who
were currently enrolled in a research methods
course participated in this experiment. All
participants received extra credit as compensa-
tion for participation. Sessions were conducted
in an office (3 m by 5 m) that contained two
desks, each with a chair and personal computer.
The participant was seated at one desk, and the
experimenter was seated at the second desk,
throughout the session. All procedures were

conducted on the computer, with the exception
of the paper-and-pencil quiz and social validity
survey. Sessions ranged in length from 75 to
140 min.

Equivalence Stimuli

Each of four stimulus classes contained four
stimuli that were presented during training
and two stimuli that were used to test for
generalization. Stimuli were developed based on
the definitions, graphical illustrations, and
clinical examples of single-subject designs in
an undergraduate textbook (Kennedy, 2005).
The A stimuli were the names of each of the
four basic single-subject designs. The B stimuli
were definitions of the four corresponding
designs. The C stimuli were graphs depicting
the implementation of each of the four single-
subject designs. Each graph had unique y-axis
labels (e.g., percentage aggressive behavior) and
unique intervention phase labels (e.g., rein-
forcement). The D stimuli were vignettes that
described clinical situations in which the four
corresponding designs would be appropriate for
use. All vignettes were designed such that the
length of each description was similar. The
vignettes described clinical situations that were
distinct from the behaviors and interventions
illustrated on the graphical (C) stimuli. The B
and D stimuli are presented in Figure 1 (see
also Walker & Rehfeldt, in press).

There were four C9 generalization stimuli
including one novel graphical representation of
each of the single-subject designs. The novel
graphs showed changes in behavior in the
opposite direction from that of the stimulus
used in training. For example, the C1 stimulus
depicted a graph for a withdrawal design that
showed an increase in the percentage correct
responding, and the C91 stimulus was a novel
graph of a withdrawal design that showed a
decrease in aggressive behavior. Novel graphs
also included different y-axis and phase labels.
The four D9 generalization stimuli were novel
clinical vignettes that described situations in
which each of the four designs would be

STIMULUS EQUIVALENCE PROTOCOL 821

appropriate for use. Length of the descriptions
in the vignettes was similar to that of the
vignettes used in training. Like the C9 gener-
alization stimuli, the vignettes described a
change in behavior opposite of the direction
of behavior change on the stimulus used in
training. For example, the D1 stimulus de-
scribed a situation in which a teacher wished to
decrease talking out in class, and the D91
stimulus described a situation in which self-
monitoring was used to increase the number of
math problems completed.

General Procedure

This experiment used a pretest–train–posttest
sequence and included two groups of partici-
pants. Participants in the equivalence group
were exposed to a computer-based stimulus
equivalence protocol, and participants in the
lecture group viewed a video of a lecture that
provided an overview of the four basic single-
subject designs. Participants were assigned
randomly to either the equivalence or lecture
group by the flip of a coin. Nine participants
were included in the lecture group, and 15
participants were included in the equivalence
group. The number of participants in the two
groups was unequal because several participants
assigned to the lecture group cancelled sessions.
Additional participants could not be recruited
for this group because course material had
progressed to the point of covering the single-
subject design topics targeted in this experiment
by that time in the semester. The main depen-
dent variable was performance on the paper-
and-pencil quiz, and all participants completed
a questionnaire to evaluate the social validity of
the instructional methods.

Paper-and-pencil pretest and posttest evaluation.
The paper-and-pencil quiz consisted of 15
multiple-choice questions on single-subject de-
signs. Each question included four response
options (a, b, c, and d). Questions included
adaptations of the stimuli presented in the
stimulus equivalence protocol and lecture. Four
questions tested variations of the definition-to-
design-name (B-A) relations by requiring partic-
ipants to select the correct design name in the
presence of a modified version of the design
definition. Four questions required participants to
select the appropriate design name in the presence
of a novel graph (C-A relation). Four questions
required participants to select the design name in
the presence of a novel clinical vignette (D-A
relation). Three questions required participants to
select the appropriate definitional design feature
in the presence of the design name (A-B relation).
A sample quiz item that required the participant

Figure 1. B and D stimuli for each of the four
stimulus classes.

822 SADIE LOVETT et al.

to select the appropriate design name in the
presence of a novel graph is depicted in Figure 2.
The quiz was administered at the start of the
experiment as a pretest, and an identical quiz was
administered as a posttest after completion of the
stimulus equivalence protocol or presentation of
the lecture for the equivalence and lecture groups,
respectively. Content of quiz questions was
validated by a professor of behavior analysis with
expertise in single-subject design methodology.

Interobserver agreement. Interobserver agree-
ment on quiz scores was collected by an
independent reviewer. Agreement was calculat-
ed for 33% of pretests and 33% of posttests
for both the equivalence and lecture groups.
Interobserver agreement scores were calculated
by dividing the number of item-by-item
agreements by the total number of agreements
plus disagreements and multiplying that value
by 100%. Item-by-item agreement for both
pretests and posttests for the equivalence group
was 100%. Mean agreement for pretests for the
lecture group was 98% (range, 93% to 100%).
Item-by-item agreement for posttests for the
lecture group was 100%. Interobserver agree-
ment was not conducted on responding during
the stimulus equivalence protocol because all
procedures and data collection were automated.

Social validity survey. A questionnaire that
assessed participants’ opinions of the respective
instructional method was administered at the
end of the experiment. The survey included four
questions that participants rated on a 7-point
Likert-type scale, with higher ratings indicating a
more positive evaluation of the instructional
method. Questions inquired as to the partici-
pant’s confidence in his or her knowledge of
single-subject designs, the degree to which he or
she would prefer to be taught using the particular
instructional method, and the participant’s
opinions on the time commitment for instruc-
tion. The survey is shown in Table 1.

Lecture Group

Following the paper-and-pencil pretest, par-
ticipants were seated at desks and were told that
they were going to view a video on single-subject
designs. Up to two participants were present
to view the video during a session; however,
participants were seated at separate desks while
completing the paper-and-pencil test. The video
was presented on the computer and showed a
56-min lecture with an accompanying Power-
Point presentation that provided an overview of
the four basic single-subject designs. Video
content included an introduction to single-subject

Figure 2. Sample question testing a C-A relation from the paper-and-pencil quiz.

STIMULUS EQUIVALENCE PROTOCOL 823

design terminology (e.g. independent variables,
dependent variables, and functional relations) and
an overview of the basic components of a
graphical display (e.g. axes, phases, and data
paths). The majority of the lecture was divided
into four sections that corresponded to withdraw-
al, multiple baseline, alternating treatments, and
changing criterion designs. Each section provided
a definition of the design, showed a basic graphical
display of the design, and presented an example of
the application of the design in an applied setting
with an accompanying graph. Lecture content was
derived from the presentation of single-subject
design material in two undergraduate textbooks
(Kennedy, 2005; Richards, Taylor, Ramasamy, &
Richards, 1999). After the video, the paper-and-
pencil posttest was administered, followed by the
social validity survey.

The paper-and-pencil pretest and posttest as
well as the social validity survey were identical
to those that were used with the equivalence
group. These two measures were the only points
of comparison between the two groups.

Equivalence Group

Training for this group consisted of a computer-
based stimulus equivalence protocol programmed

using Microsoft Visual Basic 2008 Express
Edition. Training and test trials were presented
in a match-to-sample format with one sample
stimulus at the top of the screen and four
comparison stimuli at the bottom of the screen
on each trial. For example, on a trial that
examined the A1-B1 relation, the A1 stimulus
was presented at the top of the screen, and all four
B stimuli appeared at the bottom of the screen.
Trials in all training and testing phases were
presented in random order, and the order in
which the comparison stimuli were presented on
the screen was randomized. During training,
correct responses were followed by written and
auditory feedback in the form of the word
‘‘correct’’ and the chime sound from the
Windows operating system. Incorrect responses
were followed by written and auditory feedback in
the form of the word ‘‘incorrect’’ and the chord
sound from the Windows operating system. No
feedback was provided during testing. After com-
pletion of the paper-and-pencil pretest, partici-
pants were seated at the computer and read the
following instructions on the screen:

Thank you for participating in this experiment. Your
job during this experiment is to do the best that you
can at all times. One box will be presented at the top
of the screen, and four boxes will be presented below

Table 1

Social Validity Survey

How confident do you feel in your knowledge of single-subject designs?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Not at all confident Somewhat confident Very confident

Rate the degree to which you would prefer to be taught using this instructional method.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Don’t prefer at all Somewhat prefer Strongly prefer

How appropriate was the time commitment for this instructional method in relation to the amount you feel you have learned?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Not at all appropriate Somewhat appropriate Very appropriate

How do you feel about the length of this instructional method?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at all appropriate Somewhat appropriate Very appropriate

824 SADIE LOVETT et al.

it. Your job will be to choose one of the boxes at the
bottom of the screen. During certain portions of the
experiment you will receive feedback as to whether
your choice was correct or not, but during other
portions of the experiment you will not receive
feedback. Please do the best you can at all times
regardless of whether or not you receive feedback.
Click on the button below to start.

Pretest for equivalence and generalization relations.
This test consisted of 48 trials that evaluated
equivalence (definition-to-vignette [B-D] and
vignette-to-definition [D-B]) and generalization
(design-name-to-novel-graph [A-C9] and design-
name-to-novel-vignette [A-D9]) relations. There
were 12 trials for each type of relation (e.g., B-D),
and each individual relation (e.g., B1-D1) was
presented three times. No feedback was provided
following responses on this test.

Training and symmetry tests. Participants first
were trained on the design-name-to-definition
(A-B) relations. The design names appeared as
the sample stimuli, and the design definitions
appeared as comparison stimuli. A training
block consisted of 12 trials, with each individual
relation (e.g., A1-B1) presented three times.
Responses were followed by written and audi-
tory feedback. Participants repeated the training
phase until they met the criterion of 11 of 12
correct (92%). After meeting the criterion for
design-name-to-definition (A-B) training, par-
ticipants advanced to the definition-to-design-
name (B-A) symmetry test, which included 12
trials. No feedback was provided after responses
during this test, and the criterion was 11 of 12
correct. If the criterion was not met on the
definition-to-design-name (B-A) symmetry test,
the participant returned to design-name-to-
definition (A-B) training. When the criterion
in training again was reached, the participant
proceeded to the definition-to-design-name (B-
A) symmetry test, and this process was repeated
until he or she achieved the criterion on the test.

After passing the definition-to-design-name (B-
A) symmetry test, training began on the design-
name-to-graph (A-C) relations. The design names
appeared as the sample stimuli, and graphs
appeared as comparison stimuli. Training was

conducted in the same manner as for the design-
name-to-definition (A-B) relations, with a training
block containing 12 trials and each relation (e.g.,
A1-C1) presented three times. After meeting the
criterion of 11 of 12 trials correct, participants
advanced to the graph-to-design-name (C-A)
symmetry test. This test was similar to the
definition-to-design-name (B-A) symmetry test
and included 12 trials, with a mastery criterion
of 11 of 12 correct. If the criterion was not
attained on the graph-to-design-name (C-A)
symmetry test, design-name-to-graph (A-C) train-
ing was repeated, and the graph-to-design-name
(C-A) symmetry test again was administered until
mastery was achieved.

Following the graph-to-design-name (C-A)
symmetry test, the design-name-to-vignette (A-
D) relations were trained in the same manner as
the design-name-to-definition (A-B) relations.
The design name was presented as the sample
stimulus, and the clinical vignettes appeared as
comparison stimuli. A training block contained
12 trials with each relation (e.g., A1-D1)
presented three times, and the criterion for
advancing was 11 of 12 correct. After achieving
mastery on the design-name-to-vignette (A-D)
relations, the vignette-to-design-name (D-A)
symmetry test was presented in the same
manner as the definition-to-design-name (B-
A) symmetry test. The test included 12 trials
with a mastery criterion of 11 of 12 correct. If
criterion was not achieved, design-name-to-
vignette (A-D) training was repeated, and the
vignette-to-design-name (D-A) symmetry test
was presented again until mastery was attained.

Mixed symmetry test. This test included 36
trials that evaluated the definition-to-design-
name (B-A), graph-to-design-name (C-A), and
vignette-to-design-name (D-A) symmetry rela-
tions. As in the previous tests, each relation (e.g.,
B1-A1) was presented three times. Trials were
presented in random order, and the mastery
criterion was 33 of 36 correct (91.7%). No
feedback was provided following responses.
Participants continued to the next test phase
regardless of performance.

STIMULUS EQUIVALENCE PROTOCOL 825

Transitivity test. This test consisted of 48
trials that evaluated the definition-to-graph
(B-C), graph-to-definition (C-B), graph-to-
vignette (C-D), and vignette-to-graph (D-C)
transitive relations. Each relation (e.g., B1-C1)
was presented three times, and the criterion was
44 of 48 trials correct (91.7%). Participants
continued to the next test after completion of all
48 trials regardless of performance.

Equivalence test. This test included 24 trials
that evaluated the definition-to-vignette (B-D)
and vignette-to-definition (D-B) equivalence
relations. Each relation (e.g., B1-D1) was pre-
sented three times, and the criterion was 22 of 24
trials correct (91.7%). Participants continued to
the next test regardless of performance.

Generalization test. The first test for general-
ization included 12 trials that evaluated the
design-name-to-novel-graph (A-C9) relations.
The design name was presented as the sample
stimulus, and the novel graphs appeared as
comparisons. Each relation (e.g., A1-C91) was
presented three times, and the criterion was 11
of 12 trials correct (91.7%). No feedback was
provided following responses, and participants
continued to the subsequent generalization test
regardless of performance.

The second test for generalization evaluated the
design-name-to-novel-vignette (A-D9) relations
and was presented in the same manner as the test
for design-name-to-novel-graph (A-C9) relations.
The design name appeared as the sample stimulus,
and the novel vignettes were presented as
comparisons. This test included 12 trials with
each relation (e.g., A1-D91) presented three times,
and no feedback was provided after responses.
Following completion of the design-name-to-
novel-vignette (A-D9) generalization test, the
computer program ended, and the paper-and-
pencil posttest was administered for 11 of the 15
participants in this group. The remaining four
participants continued to the tact test.

Tact test. The tact test was conducted in two
blocks using flash cards presented by the
experimenter. Before beginning the tact test,

the experimenter read the following instructions
to the participant: ‘‘I’m going to show you some
cards, and I’d like you to tell me which
experimental design the picture or description
on the card represents. I won’t tell you whether
your responses are correct or incorrect, but try
your best.’’ An individual trial consisted of
the experimenter showing the participant one
card and asking, ‘‘What design is this?’’ The
participant was allowed 10 s to review the
stimulus and respond. No feedback was
provided after responses, and if the participant
failed to tact the stimulus within 10 s, the next
trial was presented.

The first tact-test block included 24 trials
that evaluated the graph-to-design-name (C-A)
and vignette-to-design-name (D-A) relations.
The graph (C) and vignette (D) stimuli used
during training on the stimulus equivalence
protocol were individually presented on cards
(7 cm by 10 cm). Trials were presented in a
predetermined random sequence, and each
relation (e.g., C1-A1) was presented three
times. Criterion for mastery was 22 of 24
correct (91.7%), and the second test block
immediately followed regardless of perfor-
mance. The second tact-test block consisted of
24 trials that tested the novel-graph-to-design-
name (C9-A) and novel-vignette-to-design-
name (D9-A) generalization relations, and it
was conducted in the same manner as the tact
test for the trained stimuli. The novel graph
(C9) and novel clinical vignette (D9) stimuli
were presented on flash cards. Criterion for
mastery was 22 of 24 correct (91.7%). Regard-
less of performance, the paper-and-pencil post-
test was administered after the tact test.

Interobserver agreement on the tact test was
collected by an independent observer for 50%
of sessions. Interobserver agreement scores were
calculated by dividing the number of trial-
by-trial agreements by the total number of
agreements plus disagreements and multiplying
that value by 100%. Trial-by-trial agreement
was 100% for all sessions.

826 SADIE LOVETT et al.

RESULTS

Session Length

Participants in the equivalence group spent
an average of 85 min completing the stimulus
equivalence protocol (range, 62 to 120 min).
All participants in the lecture group spent
56 min in the instructional portion of the
experiment viewing the recorded lecture.

Paper-and-Pencil Evaluation

Results for the paper-and-pencil quiz for
both the equivalence and lecture groups are
presented in Table 2. For the equivalence
group, mean quiz scores were 7.4 points (SD 5
1.5) on the pretest and 10.4 points (SD 5 2.3)
on the posttest. For the lecture group, mean
quiz scores were 7.0 points (SD 5 1.3) on the
pretest and 9.4 points (SD 5 2.7) on the
posttest. The average increase in scores from
pretest to posttest was 2.9 points (SD 5 2.3) for
the equivalence group and 2.4 points (SD 5
2.4) for the lecture group. Bonferroni adjusted
alpha levels of .017 per test were used to
conduct statistical analyses. An independent
groups t test revealed no significant difference
between the posttest means of the lecture and
equivalence groups, t(21) 5 0.9, p 5.392.
Within-group t tests revealed significant differ-
ences between pretest and posttest for both the
equivalence group, t(13) 5 4.8, p , .001, and
the lecture group, t(8) 5 23.1, p 5 .016.

Social Validity Survey

The average rating regarding participants’
confidence in knowledge of single-subject de-
signs was 4.3 (range, 3 to 6) and 4.6 (range, 3 to
6) for the equivalence and lecture groups,
respectively. The degree to which participants
would prefer to receive instruction like that of
the experimental procedures received an average
rating of 4.3 (range, 2 to 7) for the equivalence
group and 4.8 (range, 1 to 7) for the lecture
group. The appropriateness of the time commit-
ment for the amount that was learned received an
average rating of 5.1 (range, 3 to 7) for both

equivalence and lecture groups. The appropri-
ateness of the length of the instructional method
received an average rating of 4.9 (range, 2 to 7)
for the equivalence group and 5.3 (range, 3 to 7)
for the lecture group. The average overall sum
score for all items on the rating scale was 18.7
(range, 12 to 25) and 19 (range, 13 to 26) for the
equivalence and lecture groups, respectively, with
higher ratings signifying a more positive review
of the instructional method.

Equivalence Class Formation

The number of training and symmetry test
blocks to criterion is depicted in Table 3.
Fourteen participants in the equivalence group
met criterion for all training sessions and
successfully passed the symmetry tests for the
individual relations. Participant 11 did not
complete design-name-to-graph (A-C) training,
and her participation ended after 54 trial
blocks. Therefore, there are no data for that
participant for the remaining analyses.

Table 2

Quiz Scores

Group Participant Pretest Posttest

Pretest to
posttest
change

Equivalence 1 8 13 5
2 7 12 5
3 7 13 6
4 7 12 5
5 8 9 1
6 6 11 5
7 8 10 2
8 9 8 21
9 6 8 2

10 5 5 0
12 8 9 1
13 7 12 5
14 7 11 4
15 11 12 1

Lecture 16 7 13 6
17 6 10 4
18 6 10 4
19 6 10 4
20 9 12 3
21 8 10 2
22 8 9 1
23 5 4 21
24 8 7 21

Note. The highest possible score was 15.

STIMULUS EQUIVALENCE PROTOCOL 827

Results for the stimulus equivalence protocol
pretests and posttests for trained and generaliza-
tion stimuli are presented in Figure 3. No
participants met criterion on the equivalence or
generalization pretests. All participants reached
criterion on the mixed test for symmetry
(definition-to-design-name [B-A], graph-to-design-
name [C-A], and vignette-to-design-name [D-A]
relations) after training. Except for Participants
4, 9, and 10, all participants reached criterion on
the test for transitivity (definition-to-graph [B-
C], graph-to-definition [C-B], graph-to-vignette
[C-D], and vignette-to-graph [D-C] relations).
Participants 4 and 9 were below criterion by one
trial on the test for transitivity, and Participant
10 was below criterion by two trials. Eleven of
the 14 participants achieved mastery criterion on
the equivalence posttest (definition-to-vignette
[B-D] and vignette-to-definition [D-B] rela-
tions). All 14 participants met criterion on the
design-name-to-novel-graph (A-C9) generaliza-
tion test. Only 6 of the 14 participants
(Participants 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, and 13) achieved
criterion on the design-name-to-novel-vignette
(A-D9) generalization test.

Tact test. Results for the tact test are depicted
in Figure 4. Three of the four participants met
criterion on the tact test for the graph-to-
design-name (C-A) relations using stimuli that

were presented during training. Two partici-
pants achieved mastery criterion on the test for
the vignette-to-design-name (D-A) relations.

Three of the four participants attained
criterion on the novel-graph-to-design-name
(C9-A) generalization relations. Two partici-
pants met criterion on the novel-vignette-to-
design-name (D9-A) generalization relations.
Participant 15 was the only one of the four
participants exposed to this condition who did
not meet criterion on the tact test using trained
or generalization stimuli.

DISCUSSION

A stimulus equivalence protocol was designed
to teach undergraduate students concepts of
single-subject experimental designs. Results of
the current study extend previous findings
on the use of equivalence-based instruction
with advanced learners by demonstrating the
emergence of relations among stimuli that were
not directly trained (Fields et al., 2009; Fienup
et al., 2010; Ninness et al., 2005, 2006; Walker
et al., 2010). As a result of this experiment,
participants in the equivalence group were able
to inspect graphical stimuli and make inferences
about single-subject designs. This study also
included more complex stimuli than the stimuli

Table 3

Number of Training and Symmetry Testing Blocks to Criterion

Participant A-B Train B-A Test A-C Train C-A Test A-D Train D-A Test

1 3 1 2 1 2 1
2 3 1 2 1 1 1
3 1 1 3 1 2 1
5 3 1 3 1 3 1
4 4 1 4 1 3 1
6 3 2 3 1 3 1
7 8 1 4 2 3 1
8 4 1 3 1 2 1
9 3 3 4 1 3 1

10 4 1 4 1 4 1
11 16 1 54a

12 2 2 2 1 3 1
13 1 1 1 1 1 1
14 3 1 3 1 4 1
15 2 1 2 1 3 1

a The participant did not meet criterion.

828 SADIE LOVETT et al.

Figure 3. Posttest scores for symmetry and transitivity relations and pretest and posttest scores on equivalence and
generalization relations for the equivalence group.

STIMULUS EQUIVALENCE PROTOCOL 829

used in stimulus equivalence research with
special populations. Previous research has
examined relations that involved simpler stim-
uli, such as pictures, letters, numbers, or single
words (Cowley et al., 1992; Lynch & Cuvo,
1995; Toussaint & Tiger, 2010). The lengthier
descriptions provided in the design definitions
and clinical vignettes in this study are more
appropriate for a college-level student and more
reflective of complex relational skills. All
participants showed generalization of respond-
ing to novel graphical stimuli, and six of the 14
participants in the equivalence group showed
generalization to novel clinical vignettes. Three
of four participants were able to tact both
training and generalization stimuli at the
conclusion of the experiment.

Comparisons of the effectiveness of the
stimulus equivalence protocol to a traditional,

lecture-teaching format revealed similar perfor-
mance on paper-and-pencil quizzes and similar
ratings regarding participants’ opinions of the
two instructional methods, despite the fact that
there was a 30-min difference between the two
procedures. Only two prior studies addressed
participants’ satisfaction with instruction using
stimulus equivalence. Fields et al. (2009) found
that participants exposed to a stimulus equiv-
alence protocol provided higher ratings of both
their understanding of statistical interactions
and their satisfaction with the instructional
method compared to a control group that
received no instruction (see also Fienup &
Critchfield, 2011). Surprisingly, the present
findings failed to show significantly higher
ratings for equivalence protocol instruction over
lecture instruction. The Technology of Teaching
(Skinner, 1968) leads us to expect that
participants would prefer instruction that
involves an active response component. Accord-
ing to Skinner (1968), learning does not take
place when a student is merely shown or told
information, as is the case in a traditional
lecture (p. 103). Results from this study indicate
that, from the student’s perspective, passive
learning (i.e., being shown or told information
in a lecture) is equally as desirable as active
learning (i.e., the stimulus equivalence proto-
col). A potential explanation for this finding is
that each participant experienced only one
instructional method. A lecture format is the
typical teaching procedure used in a college
setting. Without an alternative with which to
compare it, a student may rate that method as
desirable because it is the standard practice to
which they are accustomed. Skinner also
maintained that recall of information must
be directly reinforced for learning to occur.
Responding for the equivalence group was
directly reinforced during training, yet perfor-
mance on the paper-and-pencil quiz did not
surpass that of the lecture group. It is possible
that a college student with a lengthy learning

Figure 4. Tact test results for Participants 12, 13, 14,
and 15. Relations that involved trained stimuli are
depicted in the top graph, and relations that involved
generalization stimuli are depicted in the bottom graph.

830 SADIE LOVETT et al.

history of exposure to lecture teaching is better
able to attend to the important aspects of the
lecture (i.e., noting the repetition of the lecturer
or the words in boldface on the slides).

Also of consideration are the possible
limitations of the lecture condition regarding
the degree to which it approached a truly
traditional lecture. In the typical research
methods course from which participants were
recruited, approximately 50 students are present
for lecture. With a class this size, potentially
distracting stimuli are present (e.g., laptops,
comments from peers, less relevant comments
from the instructor) that can divert student
attention from lecture material. In this study,
lecture sessions included only one or two
students, and this may have resulted in
enhanced effects over the traditional lecture
that is presented to a large group of students.
However, online distance learning courses often
include recorded lectures that students watch
individually on the computer, and the lecture
condition in this study closely resembles the
conditions under which a student enrolled in a
distance education course might view a lecture.
The lecture used in this study also differed from
a traditional lecture because it was specifically
designed for this experiment and was tailored to
present the relations targeted in the equivalence
protocol. Modeling the lecture material on the
equivalence protocol may have increased the
likelihood that participants would learn the
relations among the stimuli from lecture alone.
Considering these limitations of the lecture
condition, a comparison of performance fol-
lowing the equivalence protocol with a more
naturalistic lecture delivered to a large class
warrants investigation (see also Critchfield &
Fienup, 2010). Gains in performance after
training on the equivalence protocol may exceed
performance gains after this form of traditional
lecture.

One of the key contributions of this study is
the demonstration of the emergence of a
topography-based repertoire after selection-based

training. To date, few studies have examined the
emergence of topography-based responding
more complex than naming pictures or reading
sight words in equivalence instruction (Cowley
et al., 1992; Toussaint & Tiger, 2010; Walker
et al., 2010). The topography-based tact re-
sponse required in this study was of greater
complexity than that seen in previous research,
in that participants were required to inspect
and interpret the graphs and read and inter-
pret each clinical vignette. Furthermore, the
emergence of a topography-based repertoire
was shown for the generalization stimuli as
well as the trained stimuli. These findings sug-
gest that this method of instruction may result
in the emergence of a form of responding that
is more functional in daily life than emergent
selection-based responses alone (Michael, 1985;
Sundberg & Sundberg, 1990). Selection-based
responses, such as pointing at or selecting
stimuli, are not functional for a college student
who must be able to read, describe, and discuss
material to attain the competency to practice in
his or her future profession. This study is a small
step in the direction of providing scientific
instructional methods that will produce such
complex repertoires.

Conclusions that can be drawn from the
results of the tact test in this study are limited,
because no pretest for the tact responses was
included. However, all participants in the
equivalence group received low pretest scores
for the equivalence and generalization relations,
and it is unlikely that they would have named
the experimental design correctly when shown a
graph or clinical vignette if they were not able to
select the appropriate design name during the
selection-based pretest. Moreover, the topography-
based repertoire was not evaluated for the lecture
group, and it remains unclear if this procedure
would have resulted in the emergence of a tact
repertoire.

Another interesting aspect of our results
concerns the tests for generalization. All
participants in the equivalence group showed

STIMULUS EQUIVALENCE PROTOCOL 831

generalization to novel graphs, but only six
participants showed generalization to novel
clinical vignettes. This finding is not surprising,
given the physical similarity between the
graphical stimuli. The differences among the
appearances of phase-change lines, the presence
of several tiers in the multiple baseline designs,
the intervention phase with multiple data paths
in the alternating treatments design, and the
gradually changing criteria of the changing
criterion design provide more salient visual cues
than the descriptions of the clinical vignettes. In
addition to containing less salient visual cues,
the vignettes required the participant to attend
to multiple aspects of the description. Choice
of the appropriate design was dependent on
attention to the number of behaviors, partici-
pants, and settings in the description; the
manner in which behavior was changed (i.e.,
gradually or not); and the number of interven-
tions. Due to the complexity of the vignettes,
additional training may have been necessary for
participants to show generalization to novel
stimuli. Training with multiple exemplars of
stimuli previously has been shown to be
effective in promoting generalization. Ninness
et al. (2005) included multiple exemplars of
graphs depicting mathematical functions during
training, and responding generalized to over 40
novel graphs. A similar use of training with
multiple exemplars could enhance discrimina-
tion of the relevant aspects of the clinical
vignettes used in this study.

Another difficulty with the vignettes is the
fact that participants could successfully com-
plete training and testing for equivalence
relations without reading the full descriptions.
For example, several vignettes included a name
for the client that differed across vignettes. A
participant could respond accurately by attend-
ing to the client name only. Training with
multiple exemplars of clinical vignettes could
help to overcome this difficulty. By requiring
the participant to respond appropriately to

several different examples of vignettes, the
features important to choosing the appropriate
design may become apparent. An alternative
method of ensuring attendance to the relevant
aspects of the stimuli is to include verbal rules
that describe the stimuli and the relations
among them (e.g., Ninness et al., 2005).

The paper-and-pencil quiz used as a pre- and
posttest also can be viewed as a test for
generalization (Fields et al., 2009). Each quiz
question included either a variation of the design
definition, a novel graph, or a novel clinical
vignette. Four of the 15 quiz questions included a
novel clinical vignette and required the participant
to select the appropriate design name. For the
equivalence group, the lack of generalization to
novel vignettes in the stimulus equivalence
protocol likely was reflected in quiz scores and
affected the differentiation in posttest scores for
the equivalence and lecture groups. Given the
generalization failures and lack of group differ-
ences on the paper-and-pencil quiz, one might
question the rationale for continued investigations
of stimulus equivalence protocols in higher
education if this instructional method does not
surpass that of standard educational practices.
This issue is particularly important given that the
lecture condition presented more information and
required less time for participants to complete.
Nonetheless, the lecture may well have required
more preparation time on part of the instructor
than did the equivalence condition. In fact, the
additional preparation time required for this
lecture may not differ significantly from the time
required to design a lecture that incorporates an
active student response component, such as
response cards (Marmolejo, Wilder, & Bradley,
2004) or guided notes (Neef, McCord, & Ferreri,
2006). However, the likelihood of an instructor
adopting a lecture format that requires greater
response effort remains a question for future
research. Furthermore, the lack of difference
between the lecture and equivalence groups need
not devalue the pursuit of research on stimulus
equivalence in education. A multitude of different

832 SADIE LOVETT et al.

forms of teaching are likely effective, and
instructors can benefit from having a variety of
teaching methods available. Because each student
has a unique learning history, it also may be the
case that some students will benefit more from
lecture teaching and others will succeed using an
equivalence protocol. In addition, the two
approaches used in the present study easily could
be used as complementary teaching strategies.

REFERENCES

Cowley, B. J., Green, G., & Braunling-McMorrow, D.
(1992). Using stimulus equivalence procedures to
teach name-face matching to adults with brain
injuries. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25,
461–475.

Critchfield, T. S., & Fienup, D. M. (2010). Using
stimulus equivalence technology to teach statistical
inference in a group setting. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 43, 763–768.

Fields, L., Travis, R., Roy, D., Yadlovker, E., de Aguiar-
Rocha, L., & Sturmey, P. (2009). Equivalence class
formation: A method for teaching statistical interac-
tions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42,
575–593.

Fienup, D. M., Covey, D. P., & Critchfield, T. S. (2010).
Teaching brain-behavior relations economically with
stimulus equivalence technology. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 43, 19–33.

Fienup, D. M., & Critchfield, T. S. (2010). Efficiently
establishing concepts of inferential statistics and
hypothesis decision making through contextually
controlled equivalence classes. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 43, 437–462.

Fienup, D. M., & Critchfield, T. S. (2011). Transport-
ability of equivalence-based programmed instruction:
Efficacy and efficiency in a college classroom. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 435–450.

Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational
research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Lynch, D. C., & Cuvo, A. J. (1995). Stimulus equivalence
instruction of fraction-decimal relations. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 115–126.

Marmolejo, E. K., Wilder, D. A., & Bradley, L. (2004). A
preliminary analysis of the effects of response cards on
student performance and participation in an upper
division university course. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 37, 405–410.

Michael, J. (1985). Two kinds of verbal behavior plus a
possible third. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 3, 1–4.

Neef, N. A., McCord, B. E., & Ferreri, S. J. (2006).
Effects of guided notes versus completed notes during
lectures on students’ quiz performance. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 123–130.

Ninness, C., Barnes-Holmes, D., Rumph, R., McCuller,
G., Ford, A. M., Payne, R., et al. (2006). Transfor-
mations of mathematical and stimulus functions.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 299–321.

Ninness, C., Rumph, R., McCuller, G., Harrison, C.,
Ford, A. M., & Ninness, S. K. (2005). A functional
analytic approach to computer-interactive mathemat-
ics. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 1–22.

Richards, S. B., Taylor, R. L., Ramasamy, R., & Richards,
R. Y. (1999). Single subject research: Applications in
educational and clinical settings. Belmont, CA: Wads-
worth Cengage Learning.

Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equiv-
alences. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14,
5–13.

Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behav-
ior: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative.

Sidman, M., & Cresson, O. (1973). Reading and
crossmodal transfer of stimulus equivalence in severe
retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency,
77, 515–523.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Sundberg, C. T., & Sundberg, M. L. (1990). Comparing
topography-based verbal behavior with stimulus
selection-based verbal behavior. The Analysis of Verbal
Behavior, 8, 31–41.

Toussaint, K. A., & Tiger, J. H. (2010). Teaching early
braille literacy skills within a stimulus equivalence
paradigm to children with degenerative visual im-
pairments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43,
181–194.

Walker, B. D., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (in press). Using the
stimulus equivalence paradigm to teach single-subject
designs to college students via Blackboard. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis.

Walker, B. D., Rehfeldt, R. A., & Ninness, C. (2010). Using
the stimulus equivalence paradigm to teach course
material in an undergraduate rehabilitation course.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 615–633.

Received July 26, 2010
Final acceptance March 28, 2011
Action Editor, Joel Ringdahl

STIMULUS EQUIVALENCE PROTOCOL 833

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 30%) /CalRGBProfile (None) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Sheetfed Coated v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed false /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize false /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments false /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 150 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 600 /ColorImageDepth 8 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /FlateEncode /AutoFilterColorImages false /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/CropGrayImages true
/GrayImageMinResolution 150
/GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 600
/GrayImageDepth 8
/GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /FlateEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages false
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/CropMonoImages true
/MonoImageMinResolution 1200
/MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/MonoImageResolution 1200
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict << /K -1 >>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/CheckCompliance [
/None
]
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly true
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError false
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (Euroscale Coated v2)
/PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier (FOGRA1)
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org)
/PDFXTrapped /False
/CreateJDFFile false
/SyntheticBoldness 1.000000
/Description << /DEU
/FRA
/JPN
/PTB
/DAN
/NLD
/ESP
/SUO
/ITA
/NOR
/SVE
/ENU (Settings for the Rampage workflow.)
>>
>> setdistillerparams
<< /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice