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 *

142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20190936)

  • 1. On the correspondence between preference assessment outcomes and progressive-ratio schedule assessments of stimulus value.
    DeLeon IG; Frank MA; Gregory MK; Allman MJ
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2009; 42(3):729-33. PubMed ID: 20190936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Assessing preference and reinforcer effectiveness in dogs.
    Vicars SM; Miguel CF; Sobie JL
    Behav Processes; 2014 Mar; 103():75-83. PubMed ID: 24270051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluation of the multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessment method using activities as stimuli.
    Daly EJ; Wells NJ; Swanger-Gagné MS; Carr JE; Kunz GM; Taylor AM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2009; 42(3):563-74. PubMed ID: 20190919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Effects of reinforcer magnitude and distribution on preference for work schedules.
    Ward-Horner JC; Pittenger A; Pace G; Fienup DM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2014; 47(3):623-7. PubMed ID: 24825241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Does preference rank predict substitution for the reinforcer for problem behavior? a behavioral economic analysis.
    Frank-Crawford MA; Castillo MI; DeLeon IG
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2018 Apr; 51(2):276-282. PubMed ID: 29536535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Extending stimulus preference assessment with the operant demand framework.
    Gilroy SP; Waits JA; Feck C
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2021 Jun; 54(3):1032-1044. PubMed ID: 33706423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. The effects of work-reinforcer schedules on performance and preference in students with autism.
    Bukala M; Hu MY; Lee R; Ward-Horner JC; Fienup DM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2015; 48(1):215-20. PubMed ID: 25688839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.