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 *

107 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38837371)

  • 21. Validity of the multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessment for edible items.
    Fritz JN; Roath CT; Shoemaker PT; Edwards AB; Hussein LA; Villante NK; Langlinais CA; Rettig LA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2020 Jul; 53(3):1688-1701. PubMed ID: 32307709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Multiple schedules of conjugate reinforcement and extinction: A translational model for assessing automatically reinforced behavior.
    Peterson MC; Ghezzi PM; Rapp JT
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2024 Mar; 57(2):383-393. PubMed ID: 38151860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Assessing preferences of individuals with developmental disabilities using alternative stimulus modalities: A systematic review.
    Heinicke MR; Carr JE; Copsey CJ
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2019 Jul; 52(3):847-869. PubMed ID: 31045241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Assessing potency of high- and low-preference reinforcers with respect to response rate and response patterns.
    Penrod B; Wallace MD; Dyer EJ
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2008; 41(2):177-88. PubMed ID: 18595282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Comparison of verbal preference assessments in the presence and absence of the actual stimuli.
    Kuhn DE; DeLeon IG; Terlonge C; Goysovich R
    Res Dev Disabil; 2006; 27(6):645-56. PubMed ID: 16263239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A demonstration of individual preference for novel mands during functional communication training.
    Winborn-Kemmerer L; Ringdahl JE; Wacker DP; Kitsukawa K
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2009; 42(1):185-9. PubMed ID: 19721740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. A comparison of synchronous and noncontingent stimulus delivery on task engagement.
    Hardesty EM; Lerman DC; Hardee JL
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2023 Jun; 56(3):664-673. PubMed ID: 37077129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. A review of methods of assessing preference for social stimuli.
    Morris SL; Gallagher ML; Allen AE
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2023 Apr; 56(2):416-427. PubMed ID: 36922701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Comparing the results of one-session, two-session, and three-session MSWO preference assessments.
    Conine DE; Morris SL; Kronfli FR; Slanzi CM; Petronelli AK; Kalick L; Vollmer TR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2021 Apr; 54(2):700-712. PubMed ID: 33465255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Human performance on a two-alternative rapid-acquisition choice task.
    Lie C; Harper DN; Hunt M
    Behav Processes; 2009 Jun; 81(2):244-9. PubMed ID: 19015013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. A comparison of preference-assessment methods.
    Verriden AL; Roscoe EM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Jun; 49(2):265-85. PubMed ID: 27037669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Evaluation of a brief stimulus preference assessment.
    Roane HS; Vollmer TR; Ringdahl JE; Marcus BA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1998; 31(4):605-20. PubMed ID: 9891397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Does preference rank predict substitution for the reinforcer for problem behavior? a behavioral economic analysis.
    Frank-Crawford MA; Castillo MI; DeLeon IG
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2018 Apr; 51(2):276-282. PubMed ID: 29536535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.