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 *

182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24825241)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Arranging response requirements and the distribution of reinforcers: A brief review of preference and performance outcomes.
    Ward-Horner JC; Cengher M; Ross RK; Fienup DM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2017 Jan; 50(1):181-185. PubMed ID: 27699787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. How should periods without social interaction be scheduled? Children's preference for practical schedules of positive reinforcement.
    Luczynski KC; Hanley GP
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2014; 47(3):500-22. PubMed ID: 24890928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Preference and resistance to change with constant-duration schedule components.
    Nevin JA; Grace RC
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2000 Jul; 74(1):79-100. PubMed ID: 10966097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Examination of ambiguous stimulus preferences with duration-based measures.
    DeLeon IG; Iwata BA; Conners J; Wallace MD
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(1):111-4. PubMed ID: 10201108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 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. Stability of daily preference across multiple individuals.
    Kelley ME; Shillingsburg MA; Bowen CN
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Jun; 49(2):394-8. PubMed ID: 26816192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Humans' choice in a self-control choice situation: sensitivity to reinforcer amount, reinforcer delay, and overall reinforcement density.
    Ito M; Nakamura K
    J Exp Anal Behav; 1998 Jan; 69(1):87-102. PubMed ID: 9465415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Student preference for and performance in fixed- versus mixed-duration schedules.
    Mellott JA; Ardoin SP
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2023 Apr; 56(2):458-469. PubMed ID: 36912472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.