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 *

150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16813040)

  • 21. On the relation between reinforcer efficacy and preference.
    Lee MS; Yu CT; Martin TL; Martin GL
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2010 Mar; 43(1):95-100. PubMed ID: 20808498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A comparison of displacement and reinforcer potency for typically developing children.
    Carter AB; Zonneveld KLM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2020 Apr; 53(2):1130-1144. PubMed ID: 31486076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Evaluating the use of computerized stimulus preference assessments in foster care.
    Whitehouse CM; Vollmer TR; Colbert B
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2014; 47(3):470-84. PubMed ID: 24966135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Comparing preference assessments: selection- versus duration-based preference assessment procedures.
    Kodak T; Fisher WW; Kelley ME; Kisamore A
    Res Dev Disabil; 2009; 30(5):1068-77. PubMed ID: 19327964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Comparison of edible and leisure reinforcers.
    Fahmie TA; Iwata BA; Jann KE
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2015; 48(2):331-43. PubMed ID: 25891170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. An evaluation of the use of eye gaze to measure preference of individuals with severe physical and developmental disabilities.
    Fleming CV; Wheeler GM; Cannella-Malone HI; Basbagill AR; Chung YC; Day KG
    Dev Neurorehabil; 2010; 13(4):266-75. PubMed ID: 20629593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Evaluation of the rate of problem behavior maintained by different reinforcers across preference assessments.
    Kang S; O'Reilly MF; Fragale CL; Aguilar JM; Rispoli M; Lang R
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2011; 44(4):835-46. PubMed ID: 22219533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Innovation of a reinforcer preference assessment with the difficult to test.
    Saunders MD; Saunders RR
    Res Dev Disabil; 2011; 32(5):1572-9. PubMed ID: 21411275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Distributed and accumulated reinforcement arrangements: evaluations of efficacy and preference.
    DeLeon IG; Chase JA; Frank-Crawford MA; Carreau-Webster AB; Triggs MM; Bullock CE; Jennett HK
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2014; 47(2):293-313. PubMed ID: 24782203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Increasing accurate preference assessment implementation through pyramidal training.
    Pence ST; St Peter CC; Tetreault AS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2012; 45(2):345-59. PubMed ID: 22844141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The effects of reinforcer pairing and fading on preschoolers' snack selections.
    Solberg KM; Hanley GP; Layer SA; Ingvarsson ET
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2007; 40(4):633-44. PubMed ID: 18189095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. An analysis of reinforcer substitutability using object manipulation and self-injury as competing responses.
    Shore BA; Iwata BA; DeLeon IG; Kahng S; Smith RG
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(1):21-41. PubMed ID: 9103985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Evaluation of assessment methods for identifying social reinforcers.
    Kelly MA; Roscoe EM; Hanley GP; Schlichenmeyer K
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2014; 47(1):113-35. PubMed ID: 24604393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Preference and reinforcer efficacy of high- and low-tech items: A comparison of item type and duration of access.
    Hoffmann AN; Samaha AL; Bloom SE; Boyle MA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2017 Apr; 50(2):222-237. PubMed ID: 28276573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Web-based stimulus preference assessment and reinforcer assessment for videos.
    Curiel H; Poling A
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2019 Jul; 52(3):796-803. PubMed ID: 31219192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. A preference analysis of reinforcer variation and choice.
    Hanratty LA; Hanley GP
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2021 Jun; 54(3):1062-1074. PubMed ID: 33990131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Effects of preference on verification of discriminated mands.
    Boelter EW; Hagopian LP
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2011; 44(4):931-5. PubMed ID: 22219543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.