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 *

130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38131231)

  • 1. Relative preference for distinct reinforcers maintaining destructive behavior.
    Norris HM; Greer BD
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2024 Mar; 57(2):358-371. PubMed ID: 38131231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Noncontingent reinforcement: Arbitrary versus maintaining reinforcers for escape-maintained problem behavior.
    Newman ZA; Roscoe EM; Errera NP; Davis CR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2021 Jun; 54(3):984-1000. PubMed ID: 33667327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Systematic Changes in Preference for Schedule-Thinning Arrangements as a Function of Relative Reinforcement Density.
    Briggs AM; Akers JS; Greer BD; Fisher WW; Retzlaff BJ
    Behav Modif; 2018 Jul; 42(4):472-497. PubMed ID: 29182009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The effects of constant versus varied reinforcers on preference and resistance to change.
    Milo JS; Mace FC; Nevin JA
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2010 May; 93(3):385-94. PubMed ID: 21119852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Signaled reinforcement: Effects of signal reliability on choice between signaled and unsignaled alternatives.
    Gomes-Ng S; Macababbad AC; Bai JYH; Baharrizki D; Elliffe D; Cowie S
    Behav Processes; 2020 May; 174():104088. PubMed ID: 32092454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. On the generality of preference for contingent reinforcement.
    Gover HC; Hanley GP; Ruppel KW
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2022 Mar; 55(2):318-336. PubMed ID: 34821380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Preference for and reinforcing efficacy of different types of attention in preschool children.
    Harper AM; Dozier CL; Briggs AM; de Villegas SD; Ackerlund Brandt JA; Jowett Hirst ES
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2021 Jun; 54(3):882-902. PubMed ID: 33567128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Shifting preferences for choice-making opportunities through histories of differential reinforcer quality.
    Drifke MA; Tiger JH; Gifford MR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2019 Feb; 52(1):227-239. PubMed ID: 30302759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Procedures for determining and then modifying the extinction component of multiple schedules for destructive behavior.
    Miller SA; Fisher WW; Greer BD; Saini V; Keevy MD
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2022 Mar; 55(2):463-480. PubMed ID: 34897677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. The multiple-stimulus-without-replacement preference assessment tool and its predictive validity.
    Curiel H; Curiel ESL; Villanueva S; Ayala CEG; Cadigan AS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2024 Jan; 57(1):226-235. PubMed ID: 37937467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Accumulated reinforcers increase academic responding and suppress problem behavior for students with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
    Robinson N; St Peter CC
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2019 Oct; 52(4):1076-1088. PubMed ID: 31016731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Assessing preferences for positive and negative reinforcement during treatment of destructive behavior with functional communication training.
    Fisher WW; Adelinis JD; Volkert VM; Keeney KM; Neidert PL; Hovanetz A
    Res Dev Disabil; 2005; 26(2):153-68. PubMed ID: 15590246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparing the reinforcing efficacy of tokens and primary reinforcers.
    Bonfonte SA; Bourret JC; Lloveras LA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2020 Jul; 53(3):1593-1605. PubMed ID: 31930500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Efficiency and preference for alternative activities during schedule thinning with functional communication training.
    Simmons CA; Salvatore GL; Zangrillo AN
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2022 Feb; 55(1):101-120. PubMed ID: 34694003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.