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 *

233 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10738949)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Effects of increased response effort on self-injury and object manipulation as competing responses.
    Zhou L; Goff GA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(1):29-40. PubMed ID: 10738950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The effects of noncontingent delivery of high- and low-preference stimuli on attention-maintained destructive behavior.
    Fisher WW; O'Connor JT; Kurtz PF; DeLeon IG; Gotjen DL
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(1):79-83. PubMed ID: 10738954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The effects of noncontingent access to food on the rate of object mouthing across three settings.
    Roane HS; Kelly ML; Fisher WW
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2003; 36(4):579-82. PubMed ID: 14768675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The effect of noncontingent sensory reinforcement, contingent sensory reinforcement, and response interruption on stereotypical and self-injurious behavior.
    Sprague J; Holland K; Thomas K
    Res Dev Disabil; 1997; 18(1):61-77. PubMed ID: 9085430
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An analysis of the reinforcing properties of hand mouthing.
    Goh HL; Iwata BA; Shore BA; DeLeon IG; Lerman DC; Ulrich SM; Smith RG
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1995; 28(3):269-83. PubMed ID: 7592144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Further examination of factors that influence preference for positive versus negative reinforcement.
    Kodak T; Lerman DC; Volkert VM; Trosclair N
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2007; 40(1):25-44. PubMed ID: 17471792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effects of contingent and noncontingent attention on self-injury and self-restraint.
    Derby KM; Fisher WW; Piazza CC
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1996; 29(1):107-10. PubMed ID: 8881350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. An integrated model for guiding the selection of treatment components for problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement.
    Berg WK; Wacker DP; Ringdahl JE; Stricker J; Vinquist K; Salil Kumar Dutt A; Dolezal D; Luke J; Kemmerer L; Mews J
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Sep; 49(3):617-38. PubMed ID: 26990962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Persistence of stereotypic behavior: examining the effects of external reinforcers.
    Ahearn WH; Clark KM; Gardenier NC; Chung BI; Dube WV
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2003; 36(4):439-48. PubMed ID: 14768664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An analysis of reinforcer substitutability using object manipulation and self-injury as competing responses.
    Shore BA; Iwata BA; DeLeon IG; Kahng S; Smith RG
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(1):21-41. PubMed ID: 9103985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Analysis of activity preferences as a function of differential consequences.
    Hanley GP; Iwata BA; Lindberg JS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(4):419-35. PubMed ID: 10641298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A preliminary procedure for predicting the positive and negative effects of reinforcement-based procedures.
    Piazza CC; Fisher WW; Hanley GP; Hilker K; Derby KM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1996; 29(2):137-52. PubMed ID: 8682733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Noncontingent reinforcement as treatment for severe problem behavior: some procedural variations.
    Lalli JS; Casey SD; Kates K
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(1):127-36; quiz 136-7. PubMed ID: 9103988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The effect of reinforcer preference on functional analysis outcomes.
    Lalli JS; Kates K
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1998; 31(1):79-90. PubMed ID: 9532752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Reduction of automatically maintained self-injurious behavior utilizing noncontingent matched stimuli.
    Davis TN; Dacus S; Strickland E; Machalicek W; Coviello L
    Dev Neurorehabil; 2013 Jun; 16(3):166-71. PubMed ID: 23477292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Two measures of preference during forced-choice assessments.
    Derby KM; Wacker DP; Andelman M; Berg W; Drew J; Asmus J; Prouty AM; Laffey P
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1995; 28(3):345-6. PubMed ID: 7592152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.