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 *

183 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10738957)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. A preliminary comparison of reinforcer assessment methods for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
    Northup J; Jones K; Broussard C; George T
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1995; 28(1):99-100. PubMed ID: 7706155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Training staff to conduct a paired-stimulus preference assessment.
    Lavie T; Sturmey P
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2002; 35(2):209-11. PubMed ID: 12102143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Evaluating the predictive validity of a single stimulus engagement preference assessment.
    Hagopian LP; Rush KS; Lewin AB; Long ES
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2001; 34(4):475-85. PubMed ID: 11800186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Evaluation of absolute and relative reinforcer value using progressive-ratio schedules.
    Francisco MT; Borrero JC; Sy JR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2008; 41(2):189-202. PubMed ID: 18595283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: the utility of verbal and pictorial choice procedures.
    Northup J; George T; Jones K; Broussard C; Vollmer TR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1996; 29(2):201-12. PubMed ID: 8682736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Establishing operations and reinforcement effects.
    Vollmer TR; Iwata BA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1991; 24(2):279-91. PubMed ID: 1890048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Comparison of verbal preference assessments in the presence and absence of the actual stimuli.
    Kuhn DE; DeLeon IG; Terlonge C; Goysovich R
    Res Dev Disabil; 2006; 27(6):645-56. PubMed ID: 16263239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Integrating caregiver report with systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification.
    Fisher WW; Piazza CC; Bowman LG; Amari A
    Am J Ment Retard; 1996 Jul; 101(1):15-25. PubMed ID: 8827248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Efficacy of and preference for reinforcement and response cost in token economies.
    Jowett Hirst ES; Dozier CL; Payne SW
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Jun; 49(2):329-45. PubMed ID: 26916640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A systematic evaluation of preferences identified through person-centered planning for people with profound multiple disabilities.
    Reid DH; Everson JM; Green CW
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(4):467-77. PubMed ID: 10641301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities (ABLA) test predicts the relative efficacy of task preferences for persons with developmental disabilities.
    Reyer HS; Sturmey P
    J Intellect Disabil Res; 2006 Jun; 50(Pt 6):404-9. PubMed ID: 16672034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Enhancing tolerance to delayed reinforcers: the role of intervening activities.
    Dixon MR; Rehfeldt RA; Randich L
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2003; 36(2):263-6. PubMed ID: 12858992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Influence of motivating operations and discriminative stimuli on challenging behavior maintained by positive reinforcement.
    Edrisinha C; O'Reilly M; Sigafoos J; Lancioni G; Choi HY
    Res Dev Disabil; 2011; 32(2):836-45. PubMed ID: 21095097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Effects of increased response effort and reinforcer delay on choice and aberrant behavior.
    Gwinn MM; Derby KM; Fisher W; Kurtz P; Fahs A; Augustine M; McLaughlin TF
    Behav Modif; 2005 Jul; 29(4):642-52. PubMed ID: 15911686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Reinforcement-based reductive procedures: training and monitoring performance of institutional staff.
    Repp AC; Deitz DE
    Ment Retard; 1979 Oct; 17(5):221-6. PubMed ID: 502848
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Too much reinforcement, too little behavior: assessing task interspersal procedures in conjunction with different reinforcement schedules with autistic children.
    Charlop MH; Kurtz PF; Milstein JP
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1992; 25(4):795-808. PubMed ID: 1478903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.