These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10396769)

  • 1. A comparison of presession and within-session reinforcement choice.
    Graff RB; Libby ME
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(2):161-73. PubMed ID: 10396769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effects of reinforcement choice on task responding in individuals with developmental disabilities.
    Lerman DC; Iwata BA; Rainville B; Adelinis JD; Crosland K; Kogan J
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(3):411-22. PubMed ID: 9316256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effects of reinforcer choice measured in single-operant and concurrent-schedule procedures.
    Geckeler AS; Libby ME; Graff RB; Ahearn WH
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(3):347-51. PubMed ID: 11051580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences.
    Fisher WW; Thompson RH; Piazza CC; Crosland K; Gotjen D
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(3):423-38. PubMed ID: 9316257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Motivational influences on performance maintained by food reinforcement.
    North ST; Iwata BA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2005; 38(3):317-33. PubMed ID: 16270842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness.
    Piazza CC; Fisher WW; Hagopian LP; Bowman LG; Toole L
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1996; 29(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 8881340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities.
    Fisher W; Piazza CC; Bowman LG; Hagopian LP; Owens JC; Slevin I
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1992; 25(2):491-8. PubMed ID: 1634435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Preference and reinforcer efficacy of high- and low-tech items: A comparison of item type and duration of access.
    Hoffmann AN; Samaha AL; Bloom SE; Boyle MA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2017 Apr; 50(2):222-237. PubMed ID: 28276573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Reinforcer choice as an antecedent versus consequence.
    Peterson C; Lerman DC; Nissen MA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Jun; 49(2):286-93. PubMed ID: 26792252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The value of choice as a reinforcer for typically developing children.
    Ackerlund Brandt JA; Dozier CL; Juanico JF; Laudont CL; Mick BR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2015; 48(2):344-62. PubMed ID: 25916749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluating different values of effort and reinforcement parameters under concurrent- and single-operant arrangements.
    Lozy ED; Sy JR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2019 May; 52(2):516-533. PubMed ID: 30548587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Using pictures to assess reinforcers in individuals with developmental disabilities.
    Graff RB; Gibson L
    Behav Modif; 2003 Sep; 27(4):470-83. PubMed ID: 12971123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Gestational exposure to methylmercury retards choice in transition in aging rats.
    Newland MC; Reile PA; Langston JL
    Neurotoxicol Teratol; 2004; 26(2):179-94. PubMed ID: 15019952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Assessment of preference for varied versus constant reinforcers.
    Bowman LG; Piazza CC; Fisher WW; Hagopian LP; Kogan JS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(3):451-8. PubMed ID: 9316258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Parametric analysis of delayed primary and conditioned reinforcers.
    Leon Y; Borrero JC; DeLeon IG
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Sep; 49(3):639-55. PubMed ID: 27174440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Human performance on a two-alternative rapid-acquisition choice task.
    Lie C; Harper DN; Hunt M
    Behav Processes; 2009 Jun; 81(2):244-9. PubMed ID: 19015013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Choice-making treatment of young children's severe behavior problems.
    Peck SM; Wacker DP; Berg WK; Cooper LJ; Brown KA; Richman D; McComas JJ; Frischmeyer P; Millard T
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1996; 29(3):263-90. PubMed ID: 8810061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluation of a brief stimulus preference assessment.
    Roane HS; Vollmer TR; Ringdahl JE; Marcus BA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1998; 31(4):605-20. PubMed ID: 9891397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Humans' choice in a self-control choice situation: sensitivity to reinforcer amount, reinforcer delay, and overall reinforcement density.
    Ito M; Nakamura K
    J Exp Anal Behav; 1998 Jan; 69(1):87-102. PubMed ID: 9465415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: implications for preference assessments.
    Roscoe EM; Iwata BA; Kahng S
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(4):479-93. PubMed ID: 10641302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.