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 *

194 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20629593)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Comparison of a video-based assessment and a multiple stimulus assessment to identify preferred jobs for individuals with significant intellectual disabilities.
    Horrocks EL; Morgan RL
    Res Dev Disabil; 2009; 30(5):902-9. PubMed ID: 19231132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences.
    DeLeon IG; Iwata BA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1996; 29(4):519-32; quiz 532-3. PubMed ID: 8995834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Pre-assessment exposure to schedule-correlated stimuli affects choice responding for tasks.
    Kelley ME; Shamlian K; Lomas JE; Pabico RS
    Res Dev Disabil; 2011; 32(2):527-31. PubMed ID: 21232917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Predicting the relative efficacy of three presentation methods for assessing preferences of persons with developmental disabilities.
    Conyers C; Doole A; Vause T; Harapiak S; Yu DC; Martin GL
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2002; 35(1):49-58. PubMed ID: 11936545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Evaluation of a pre-treatment assessment to select mand topographies for functional communication training.
    Ringdahl JE; Falcomata TS; Christensen TJ; Bass-Ringdahl SM; Lentz A; Dutt A; Schuh-Claus J
    Res Dev Disabil; 2009; 30(2):330-41. PubMed ID: 18672344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Manipulating the behavior-altering effect of the motivating operation: examination of the influence on challenging behavior during leisure activities.
    O'Reilly MF; Sigafoos J; Lancioni G; Rispoli M; Lang R; Chan J; Machalicek W; Langthorne P
    Res Dev Disabil; 2008; 29(4):333-40. PubMed ID: 17629672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Using a Time Timer to increase appropriate waiting behavior in a child with developmental disabilities.
    Grey I; Healy O; Leader G; Hayes D
    Res Dev Disabil; 2009; 30(2):359-66. PubMed ID: 18926663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Comparison of the predictive validity and consistency among preference assessment procedures: a review of the literature.
    Kang S; O'Reilly M; Lancioni G; Falcomata TS; Sigafoos J; Xu Z
    Res Dev Disabil; 2013 Apr; 34(4):1125-33. PubMed ID: 23357675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Functional analysis of erratic body movement maintained by visual stimulation. Incorporating conjugate reinforcement into a paired-stimulus preference assessment.
    Rapp JT; Dozier CL; Carr JE; Patel MR; Enloe KA
    Behav Modif; 2004 Jan; 28(1):118-32. PubMed ID: 14710709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The effects of pairing non-preferred staff with preferred stimuli on increasing the reinforcing value of non-preferred staff attention.
    Jerome J; Sturmey P
    Res Dev Disabil; 2014 Apr; 35(4):849-60. PubMed ID: 24508066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. An evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment with adolescents with emotional-behavioral disorders in an educational setting.
    Paramore NW; Higbee TS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2005; 38(3):399-403. PubMed ID: 16270849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.