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 *

117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38837371)

  • 1. Assessing stimulus preference using response force in a conjugate preparation: A replication and extension.
    Sheridan DJ; Rapp JT; Edgemon AK; Pinkston JW
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2024 Jul; 122(1):25-41. PubMed ID: 38837371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparing stimulus preference and response force in a conjugate preparation: A replication with auditory stimulation.
    Cook JL; Baruni RR; Pinkston JW; Rapp JT; Miltenberger RG; Deshmukh S; Walker E; Tai S
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2024 Jul; 122(1):11-24. PubMed ID: 38724460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparing stimulus preference and response force in a conjugate preparation.
    Davis WT; Rapp JT; Brogan KM; Pinkston JW; Chinnappan B
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2021 Jul; 116(1):96-113. PubMed ID: 34261190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. The effects of pictorial versus tangible stimuli in stimulus-preference assessments.
    Higbee TS; Carr JE; Harrison CD
    Res Dev Disabil; 1999; 20(1):63-72. PubMed ID: 9987811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The impact of high- and low-preference stimuli on vocational and academic performances of youths with severe disabilities.
    Graff RB; Gibson L; Galiatsatos GT
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2006; 39(1):131-5. PubMed ID: 16602393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Assessing the efficacy of pictorial preference assessments for children with developmental disabilities.
    Heinicke MR; Carr JE; Pence ST; Zias DR; Valentino AL; Falligant JM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Dec; 49(4):848-868. PubMed ID: 27529144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluation of the multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessment method using activities as stimuli.
    Daly EJ; Wells NJ; Swanger-Gagné MS; Carr JE; Kunz GM; Taylor AM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2009; 42(3):563-74. PubMed ID: 20190919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Web-based stimulus preference assessment and reinforcer assessment for videos.
    Curiel H; Poling A
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2019 Jul; 52(3):796-803. PubMed ID: 31219192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Revisiting conjugate schedules.
    MacAleese KR; Ghezzi PM; Rapp JT
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2015 Jul; 104(1):63-73. PubMed ID: 26150349
    [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. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. A comparison of paired- and multiple-stimulus-without-replacement preference assessments to identify reinforcers for dog behavior.
    Payne SW; Fulgencio CT; Aniga RN
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2023 Jul; 120(1):78-90. PubMed ID: 37199306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A comparison between traditional economical and demand curve analyses of relative reinforcer efficacy in the validation of preference assessment predictions.
    Reed DD; Luiselli JK; Magnuson JD; Fillers S; Vieira S; Rue HC
    Dev Neurorehabil; 2009 Jun; 12(3):164-9. PubMed ID: 19466625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.