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 *

209 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18595283)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Assessing potency of high- and low-preference reinforcers with respect to response rate and response patterns.
    Penrod B; Wallace MD; Dyer EJ
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2008; 41(2):177-88. PubMed ID: 18595282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Reinforcement magnitude: an evaluation of preference and reinforcer efficacy.
    Trosclair-Lasserre NM; Lerman DC; Call NA; Addison LR; Kodak T
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2008; 41(2):203-20. PubMed ID: 18595284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Emergence of reinforcer preference as a function of schedule requirements and stimulus similarity.
    DeLeon IG; Iwata BA; Goh HL; Worsdell AS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(3):439-49. PubMed ID: 9378681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Examination of the influence of contingency on changes in reinforcer value.
    DeLeon IG; Gregory MK; Frank-Crawford MA; Allman MJ; Wilke AE; Carreau-Webster AB; Triggs MM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2011; 44(3):543-58. PubMed ID: 21941384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Including unfamiliar stimuli in preference assessments for young children with autism.
    Kenzer AL; Bishop MR; Wilke AE; Tarbox JR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2013; 46(3):689-94. PubMed ID: 24114234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Correspondence between single versus daily preference assessment outcomes and reinforcer efficacy under progressive-ratio schedules.
    Call NA; Trosclair-Lasserre NM; Findley AJ; Reavis AR; Shillingsburg MA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2012; 45(4):763-77. PubMed ID: 23322931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 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. An evaluation of the value of choice-making opportunities in single-operant arrangements: simple fixed- and progressive-ratio schedules.
    Tiger JH; Toussaint KA; Roath CT
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2010; 43(3):519-24. PubMed ID: 21358913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Assessing the value of token reinforcement for individuals with autism.
    Fiske KE; Isenhower RW; Bamond MJ; Delmolino L; Sloman KN; LaRue RH
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2015; 48(2):448-53. PubMed ID: 25930718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. An analysis of vocal stereotypy and therapist fading.
    Athens ES; Vollmer TR; Sloman KN; St Peter Pipkin C
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2008; 41(2):291-7. PubMed ID: 18595296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Persistence of stereotypic behavior: examining the effects of external reinforcers.
    Ahearn WH; Clark KM; Gardenier NC; Chung BI; Dube WV
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2003; 36(4):439-48. PubMed ID: 14768664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: the utility of verbal and pictorial choice procedures.
    Northup J; George T; Jones K; Broussard C; Vollmer TR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1996; 29(2):201-12. PubMed ID: 8682736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Teacher report and direct assessment of preferences for identifying reinforcers for young children.
    Cote CA; Thompson RH; Hanley GP; McKerchar PM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2007; 40(1):157-66. PubMed ID: 17471799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.