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 *

144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10641304)

  • 1. On the displacement of leisure items by food during multiple-stimulus preference assessments.
    Bojak SL; Carr JE
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(4):515-8. PubMed ID: 10641304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Displacement of leisure reinforcers by food during preference assessments.
    DeLeon IG; Iwata BA; Roscoe EM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(3):475-84. PubMed ID: 9316260
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Further evaluation of low-ranked items in stimulus-choice preference assessments.
    Taravella CC; Lerman DC; Contrucci SA; Roane HS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(1):105-8. PubMed ID: 10738960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Emergence of reinforcer preference as a function of schedule requirements and stimulus similarity.
    DeLeon IG; Iwata BA; Goh HL; Worsdell AS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(3):439-49. PubMed ID: 9378681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Evaluation of an efficient method for training staff to implement stimulus preference assessments.
    Roscoe EM; Fisher WW
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2008; 41(2):249-54. PubMed ID: 18595289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Analysis of free-time contingencies as positive versus negative reinforcement.
    Zarcone JR; Fisher WW; Piazza CC
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1996; 29(2):247-50. PubMed ID: 8682741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effects of Magnitude on the Displacement of Leisure Items by Edible Items During Preference Assessments.
    Clark SB; Call NA; Simmons CA; Scheithauer MC; Muething CS; Parks N
    Behav Modif; 2020 Sep; 44(5):727-745. PubMed ID: 30983381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Preference for leisure items over edible items in individuals with dementia: A replication.
    Lucock ZR; Sharp RA; Jones RS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2020 Jul; 53(3):1780-1788. PubMed ID: 31957021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An evaluation of the effects of matched stimuli on behaviors maintained by automatic reinforcement.
    Piazza CC; Adelinis JD; Hanley GP; Goh HL; Delia MD
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(1):13-27. PubMed ID: 10738949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Predicting the relative efficacy of verbal, pictorial, and tangible stimuli for assessing preferences of leisure activities.
    de Vries C; Yu CT; Sakko G; Wirth KM; Walters KL; Marion C; Martin GL
    Am J Ment Retard; 2005 Mar; 110(2):145-54. PubMed ID: 15762824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Relative preferences for edible and leisure stimuli in children with autism.
    Conine DE; Vollmer TR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2019 May; 52(2):557-573. PubMed ID: 30468244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. The effects of pairing non-preferred staff with preferred stimuli on increasing the reinforcing value of non-preferred staff attention.
    Jerome J; Sturmey P
    Res Dev Disabil; 2014 Apr; 35(4):849-60. PubMed ID: 24508066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Reinforcing efficacy of interactions with preferred and nonpreferred staff under progressive-ratio schedules.
    Jerome J; Sturmey P
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2008; 41(2):221-5. PubMed ID: 18595285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Manipulating the behavior-altering effect of the motivating operation: examination of the influence on challenging behavior during leisure activities.
    O'Reilly MF; Sigafoos J; Lancioni G; Rispoli M; Lang R; Chan J; Machalicek W; Langthorne P
    Res Dev Disabil; 2008; 29(4):333-40. PubMed ID: 17629672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.