255 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12971123)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Assessing object-to-picture and picture-to-object matching as prerequisite skills for pictorial preference assessments.
Clevenger TM; Graff RB
J Appl Behav Anal; 2005; 38(4):543-7. PubMed ID: 16463535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. The impact of high- and low-preference stimuli on vocational and academic performances of youths with severe disabilities.
Graff RB; Gibson L; Galiatsatos GT
J Appl Behav Anal; 2006; 39(1):131-5. PubMed ID: 16602393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluating self-control and impulsivity in children with severe behavior disorders.
Vollmer TR; Borrero JC; Lalli JS; Daniel D
J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(4):451-66. PubMed ID: 10641300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Assessing preferences of individuals with acquired brain injury using alternative stimulus modalities.
Heinicke MR; Carr JE; Eastridge D; Kupfer J; Mozzoni MP
Brain Inj; 2013; 27(1):48-59. PubMed ID: 23252436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Assessing preference for social interactions.
Clay CJ; Samaha AL; Bloom SE; Bogoev BK; Boyle MA
Res Dev Disabil; 2013 Jan; 34(1):362-71. PubMed ID: 23009945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effects of choice making on the serious problem behaviors of students with severe handicaps.
Dyer K; Dunlap G; Winterling V
J Appl Behav Anal; 1990; 23(4):515-24. PubMed ID: 2074240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. The effects of pictorial versus tangible stimuli in stimulus-preference assessments.
Higbee TS; Carr JE; Harrison CD
Res Dev Disabil; 1999; 20(1):63-72. PubMed ID: 9987811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Increasing the efficiency of paired-stimulus preference assessments by identifying categories of preference.
Ciccone FJ; Graff RB; Ahearn WH
J Appl Behav Anal; 2015; 48(1):221-6. PubMed ID: 25754896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Preference for reinforcers under progressive- and fixed-ratio schedules: a comparison of single and concurrent arrangements.
Glover AC; Roane HS; Kadey HJ; Grow LL
J Appl Behav Anal; 2008; 41(2):163-76. PubMed ID: 18595281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
