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 *

195 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26916640)

  • 1. Efficacy of and preference for reinforcement and response cost in token economies.
    Jowett Hirst ES; Dozier CL; Payne SW
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Jun; 49(2):329-45. PubMed ID: 26916640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Evaluation of client preference for function-based treatment packages.
    Hanley GP; Piazza CC; Fisher WW; Contrucci SA; Maglieri KA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(3):459-73. PubMed ID: 9316259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Evaluating the influence of postsession reinforcement on choice of reinforcers.
    Kodak T; Lerman DC; Call N
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2007; 40(3):515-27. PubMed ID: 17970264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Sociometric and disruptive behavior as a function of four types of token reinforcement programs.
    Drabman R; Spitalnik R; Spitalnik K
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1974; 7(1):93-101. PubMed ID: 4619117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Assessing the value of choice in a token system.
    Sran SK; Borrero JC
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2010; 43(3):553-7. PubMed ID: 21358919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Response allocation to concurrent fixed-ratio reinforcement schedules with work requirements by adults with mental retardation and typical preschool children.
    Cuvo AJ; Lerch LJ; Leurquin DA; Gaffaney TJ; Poppen RL
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1998; 31(1):43-63. PubMed ID: 9532750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Incentivizing physical activity using token reinforcement with preschool children.
    Patel RR; Normand MP; Kohn CS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2019 May; 52(2):499-515. PubMed ID: 30637721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Evaluating the reinforcing effects of choice in comparison to reinforcement rate.
    Thompson RH; Fisher WW; Contrucci SA
    Res Dev Disabil; 1998; 19(2):181-7. PubMed ID: 9547528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. The effects of brief and extended stimulus availability on preference.
    Steinhilber J; Johnson C
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2007; 40(4):767-72. PubMed ID: 18189114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Unit price and choice in a token-reinforcement context.
    Foster TA; Hackenberg TD
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2004 Jan; 81(1):5-25. PubMed ID: 15113130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Effects of and preference for conditions of token earn versus token loss.
    Donaldson JM; DeLeon IG; Fisher AB; Kahng S
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2014; 47(3):537-48. PubMed ID: 24844817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Too much reinforcement, too little behavior: assessing task interspersal procedures in conjunction with different reinforcement schedules with autistic children.
    Charlop MH; Kurtz PF; Milstein JP
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1992; 25(4):795-808. PubMed ID: 1478903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The effect of reinforcer preference on functional analysis outcomes.
    Lalli JS; Kates K
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1998; 31(1):79-90. PubMed ID: 9532752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.