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 *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37937467)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. An evaluation of preference stability within MSWO preference assessments for children with autism.
    Melanson IJ; Thomas AL; Brodhead MT; Sipila-Thomas ES; Miranda DRG; Plavnick JB; Joy TA; Fisher MH; White-Cascarilla AN
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2023 Jun; 56(3):638-655. PubMed ID: 37166411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 27. Examining the generality of children's preference for contingent reinforcement via extension to different responses, reinforcers, and schedules.
    Luczynski KC; Hanley GP
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2010; 43(3):397-409. PubMed ID: 21358901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Systematic assessment of food item preference and reinforcer effectiveness: Enhancements in training laboratory-housed rhesus macaques.
    Martin AL; Franklin AN; Perlman JE; Bloomsmith MA
    Behav Processes; 2018 Dec; 157():445-452. PubMed ID: 30003936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. An evaluation of synchronous reinforcement for increasing on-task behavior in preschool children.
    Diaz de Villegas SC; Dozier CL; Jess RL; Foley EA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2020 Jul; 53(3):1660-1673. PubMed ID: 32130735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. An Investigation of a Video-Based Preference Assessment of Social Interactions.
    Wolfe K; Kunnavatana SS; Shoemaker AM
    Behav Modif; 2018 Sep; 42(5):729-746. PubMed ID: 28911243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A comparison of picture and GIF-based preference assessments for social interaction.
    Morris SL; Vollmer TR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2020 Jul; 53(3):1452-1465. PubMed ID: 31965577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Evaluating the effects of social interaction on the results of preference assessments for leisure items.
    Kanaman NA; Hubbs AL; Dozier CL; Jones BA; Foley E; Brandt JA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2022 Mar; 55(2):430-450. PubMed ID: 34958457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Preliminary investigation of a video-based stimulus preference assessment.
    Snyder K; Higbee TS; Dayton E
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2012; 45(2):413-8. PubMed ID: 22844148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences.
    Fisher WW; Thompson RH; Piazza CC; Crosland K; Gotjen D
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(3):423-38. PubMed ID: 9316257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Using Pictures Depicting App Icons to Conduct an MSWO Preference Assessment on a Tablet Device.
    Hoffmann AN; Brady AM; Paskins RT; Sellers TP
    Behav Anal Pract; 2019 Jun; 12(2):335-342. PubMed ID: 31976239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Examining the discriminative and strengthening effects of reinforcers in concurrent schedules.
    Boutros N; Elliffe D; Davison M
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2011 Sep; 96(2):227-41. PubMed ID: 21909166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.