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: 21358913)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 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. Effects of reinforcer choice measured in single-operant and concurrent-schedule procedures.
    Geckeler AS; Libby ME; Graff RB; Ahearn WH
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(3):347-51. PubMed ID: 11051580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Reinforcer choice as an antecedent versus consequence.
    Peterson C; Lerman DC; Nissen MA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Jun; 49(2):286-93. PubMed ID: 26792252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A comparison of delays and ratio requirements in self-control choice.
    Grossbard CL; Mazur JE
    J Exp Anal Behav; 1986 May; 45(3):305-15. PubMed ID: 3711777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effects of work-reinforcer schedules on skill acquisition for children with autism.
    Kocher CP; Howard MR; Fienup DM
    Behav Modif; 2015 Jul; 39(4):600-21. PubMed ID: 25896361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. An evaluation of choice on instructional efficacy and individual preferences among children with autism.
    Toussaint KA; Kodak T; Vladescu JC
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Mar; 49(1):170-5. PubMed ID: 26510978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of progressive hold and progressive response schedules of reinforcement.
    Alvarez-Sekely CS; Toscano-Zapien AL; Salles-Ize P; Zepeda-Ruiz WA; Lopez-Guzman MA; Velazquez-Martinez DN
    Behav Processes; 2023 Feb; 205():104822. PubMed ID: 36669746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The effects of D-amphetamine on responding for candy and fruit drink using a fixed ratio and a progressive ratio schedule of reinforcer delivery.
    Foltin RW; Evans SM
    Pharmacol Biochem Behav; 2001; 69(1-2):125-31. PubMed ID: 11420077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Concurrent progressive ratio schedules: Effects of reinforcer probability on breakpoint and response allocation.
    Jarmolowicz DP; Sofis MJ; Darden AC
    Behav Processes; 2016 Jul; 128():103-7. PubMed ID: 27131782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Effects of reinforcer quality and step size on rats' performance under progressive ratio schedules.
    Covarrubias P; Aparicio CF
    Behav Processes; 2008 Jun; 78(2):246-52. PubMed ID: 18346855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluating Preference and Performance in Accumulated versus Distributed Response-Reinforcer Arrangements.
    Weston R; Davis T; Ross RK
    Behav Modif; 2020 Nov; 44(6):909-926. PubMed ID: 31387363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. A comparison of differential reinforcement procedures with children with autism.
    Boudreau BA; Vladescu JC; Kodak TM; Argott PJ; Kisamore AN
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2015 Dec; 48(4):918-23. PubMed ID: 26174019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Using fixed-time schedules to maintain behavior: a preliminary investigation.
    Dozier CL; Carr JE; Enlof K; Landaburu H; Eastridge D; Kellum KK
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2001; 34(3):337-40. PubMed ID: 11678529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparing autistic and normal children along the dimensions of reinforcement maximization, stimulus sampling, and responsiveness to extinction.
    Mullins M; Rincover A
    J Exp Child Psychol; 1985 Oct; 40(2):350-74. PubMed ID: 4045384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.