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 *

255 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11800186)

  • 41. 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]  

  • 42. Effects of choice of stimuli as reinforcement for task responding in reinforcement for task responding in preschoolers with and without developmental disabilities.
    Waldron-Soler KM; Martella RC; Marchand-Martella NE; Ebey TL
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(1):93-6. PubMed ID: 10738957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Choices between positive and negative reinforcement during treatment for escape-maintained behavior.
    DeLeon IG; Neidert PL; Anders BM; Rodriguez-Catter V
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2001; 34(4):521-5. PubMed ID: 11800194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Re-evaluation of constant versus varied punishers using empirically derived consequences.
    Toole LM; DeLeon IG; Kahng S; Ruffin GE; Pletcher CA; Bowman LG
    Res Dev Disabil; 2004; 25(6):577-86. PubMed ID: 15541633
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Assessing preference and reinforcer effectiveness in dogs.
    Vicars SM; Miguel CF; Sobie JL
    Behav Processes; 2014 Mar; 103():75-83. PubMed ID: 24270051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Evaluating the effects of social interaction on the results of preference assessments for leisure items.
    Kanaman NA; Hubbs AL; Dozier CL; Jones BA; Foley E; Brandt JA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2022 Mar; 55(2):430-450. PubMed ID: 34958457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Effects of reinforcer magnitude and distribution on preference for work schedules.
    Ward-Horner JC; Pittenger A; Pace G; Fienup DM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2014; 47(3):623-7. PubMed ID: 24825241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. 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]  

  • 49. Elimination of position-biased responding in individuals with autism and intellectual disabilities.
    Bourret JC; Iwata BA; Harper JM; North ST
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2012; 45(2):241-50. PubMed ID: 22844134
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Functional analysis and treatment of problem behavior evoked by noise.
    McCord BE; Iwata BA; Galensky TL; Ellingson SA; Thomson RJ
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2001; 34(4):447-62. PubMed ID: 11800184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Functional analysis of erratic body movement maintained by visual stimulation. Incorporating conjugate reinforcement into a paired-stimulus preference assessment.
    Rapp JT; Dozier CL; Carr JE; Patel MR; Enloe KA
    Behav Modif; 2004 Jan; 28(1):118-32. PubMed ID: 14710709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Effects of two variations of differential reinforcement on prompt dependency.
    Cividini-Motta C; Ahearn WH
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2013; 46(3):640-50. PubMed ID: 24114226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. 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]  

  • 54. The effects of choice and task preference on the work performance of adults with severe disabilities.
    Bambara LM; Ager C; Koger F
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1994; 27(3):555-6. PubMed ID: 7928796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Evaluation of a pre-treatment assessment to select mand topographies for functional communication training.
    Ringdahl JE; Falcomata TS; Christensen TJ; Bass-Ringdahl SM; Lentz A; Dutt A; Schuh-Claus J
    Res Dev Disabil; 2009; 30(2):330-41. PubMed ID: 18672344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. A method for analyzing changes in response efficiency.
    Van Camp CM; Lerman DC; Kelley ME
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2001; 34(4):487-90. PubMed ID: 11800187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. A brief computer-based assessment of reinforcer dimensions affecting choice.
    Neef NA; Lutz MN
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2001; 34(1):57-60. PubMed ID: 11317987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Are video-based preference assessments without access to selected stimuli effective?
    Clark DR; Donaldson JM; Kahng S
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2015 Dec; 48(4):895-900. PubMed ID: 26333156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. An evaluation of the effects of access duration on preference assessment outcomes.
    Jones BA; Dozier CL; Neidert PL
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2014; 47(1):209-13. PubMed ID: 24535847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Preference for a segmented schedule using a brief S+ stimulus correlated with a great delay reduction in humans.
    Alessandri J; Molet M; Fantino E
    Behav Processes; 2010 Sep; 85(1):72-6. PubMed ID: 20558259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.