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.
26. Social reinforcement and the naturally occurring social responses of severely and profoundly retarded adolescents. Mayhew GL; Enyart P; Anderson J Am J Ment Defic; 1978 Sep; 83(2):164-70. PubMed ID: 696765 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Response-reinforcer relations and resistance to change. Podlesnik CA; Shahan TA Behav Processes; 2008 Jan; 77(1):109-25. PubMed ID: 17706897 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Auditory-visual stimuli, spoken-written response mode and task difficulty and activity levels of mildly retarded children. Stephens WE; Henry GH Am J Ment Defic; 1973 Jan; 77(4):455-69. PubMed ID: 4706407 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. A review of positive conditioned reinforcement. KELLEHER RT; GOLLUB LR J Exp Anal Behav; 1962 Oct; 5(4 Suppl):543-97. PubMed ID: 14031747 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Effects of response deprivation on the instrumental performance of mentally retarded persons. Konarski EA Am J Ment Defic; 1987 Mar; 91(5):537-42. PubMed ID: 3565497 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Preferences in institutionalized severely retarded children for selected visual stimulus material presented as operant reinforcement. Rynders JE; Friedlander BZ Am J Ment Defic; 1972 Mar; 76(5):568-73. PubMed ID: 5012139 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Application of operant conditioning techniques to institutionalized severely and profoundly retarded children. Watson LS Ment Retard Abstr; 1967; 4(1):1-18. PubMed ID: 6043318 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Multihandicapped children's preferences for pure tones and speech stimuli as a method of assessing auditory capabilities. Silva DA; Friedlander BZ; Knight MS Am J Ment Defic; 1978 Jul; 83(1):29-36. PubMed ID: 150230 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences. Green CW; Reid DH; White LK; Halford RC; Brittain DP; Gardner SM J Appl Behav Anal; 1988; 21(1):31-43. PubMed ID: 2967274 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Pace GM; Ivancic MT; Edwards GL; Iwata BA; Page TJ J Appl Behav Anal; 1985; 18(3):249-55. PubMed ID: 4044458 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. An evaluation of a stimulus preference assessment of auditory stimuli for adolescents with developmental disabilities. Horrocks E; Higbee TS Res Dev Disabil; 2008; 29(1):11-20. PubMed ID: 17097267 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Sex differences in extinction of operant responding by educable retarded and nonretarded children. Thor DH Am J Ment Defic; 1972 Jul; 77(1):100-6. PubMed ID: 5052419 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Informational determinants of social reinforcement effectiveness among retarded children. Cairns RB; Paris SG Am J Ment Defic; 1971 Nov; 76(3):362-9. PubMed ID: 5148368 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]