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 *

608 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1634435)

  • 1. A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities.
    Fisher W; Piazza CC; Bowman LG; Hagopian LP; Owens JC; Slevin I
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1992; 25(2):491-8. PubMed ID: 1634435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Teaching choice making during social interactions to students with profound multiple disabilities.
    Kennedy CH; Haring TG
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1993; 26(1):63-76. PubMed ID: 8473259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 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. Task variation versus task repetition for people with profound developmental disabilities: an assessment of preferences.
    Lancioni GE; O'Reilly MF; Campodonico F; Mantini M
    Res Dev Disabil; 1998; 19(2):189-99. PubMed ID: 9547529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Teaching individuals with profound multiple disabilities to access preferred stimuli with multiple microswitches.
    Tam GM; Phillips KJ; Mudford OC
    Res Dev Disabil; 2011; 32(6):2352-61. PubMed ID: 21824746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Effects of subject- versus experimenter-selected reinforcers on the behavior of individuals with profound developmental disabilities.
    Smith RG; Iwata BA; Shore BA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1995; 28(1):61-71. PubMed ID: 7706151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The effects of providing access to stimuli following choice making during vocal preference assessments.
    Tessing JL; Napolitano DA; McAdam DB; DiCesare A; Axelrod S
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2006; 39(4):501-6. PubMed ID: 17236351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A comparison of presession and within-session reinforcement choice.
    Graff RB; Libby ME
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(2):161-73. PubMed ID: 10396769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Response allocation to concurrent fixed-ratio reinforcement schedules with work requirements by adults with mental retardation and typical preschool children.
    Cuvo AJ; Lerch LJ; Leurquin DA; Gaffaney TJ; Poppen RL
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1998; 31(1):43-63. PubMed ID: 9532750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 31.