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 *

84 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7592152)

  • 1. Two measures of preference during forced-choice assessments.
    Derby KM; Wacker DP; Andelman M; Berg W; Drew J; Asmus J; Prouty AM; Laffey P
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1995; 28(3):345-6. PubMed ID: 7592152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Further evaluation of low-ranked items in stimulus-choice preference assessments.
    Taravella CC; Lerman DC; Contrucci SA; Roane HS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(1):105-8. PubMed ID: 10738960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Effects of subject- versus experimenter-selected reinforcers on the behavior of individuals with profound developmental disabilities.
    Smith RG; Iwata BA; Shore BA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1995; 28(1):61-71. PubMed ID: 7706151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The effects of establishing operations on preference assessment outcomes.
    Gottschalk JM; Libby ME; Graff RB
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(1):85-8. PubMed ID: 10738955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparing preference assessments: selection- versus duration-based preference assessment procedures.
    Kodak T; Fisher WW; Kelley ME; Kisamore A
    Res Dev Disabil; 2009; 30(5):1068-77. PubMed ID: 19327964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. An evaluation of the effects of matched stimuli on behaviors maintained by automatic reinforcement.
    Piazza CC; Adelinis JD; Hanley GP; Goh HL; Delia MD
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(1):13-27. PubMed ID: 10738949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Enhancing tolerance to delayed reinforcers: the role of intervening activities.
    Dixon MR; Rehfeldt RA; Randich L
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2003; 36(2):263-6. PubMed ID: 12858992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effects of increased response effort and reinforcer delay on choice and aberrant behavior.
    Gwinn MM; Derby KM; Fisher W; Kurtz P; Fahs A; Augustine M; McLaughlin TF
    Behav Modif; 2005 Jul; 29(4):642-52. PubMed ID: 15911686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Preference assessment procedures for individuals with developmental disabilities.
    Hagopian LP; Long ES; Rush KS
    Behav Modif; 2004 Sep; 28(5):668-77. PubMed ID: 15296524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Schedule-induced locomotor activity in humans.
    Muller PG; Crow RE; Cheney CD
    J Exp Anal Behav; 1979 Jan; 31(1):83-90. PubMed ID: 429959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Preference for water-related items in Angelman syndrome, Down syndrome and non-specific intellectual disability.
    Didden R; Korzilius H; Sturmey P; Lancioni GE; Curfs LM
    J Intellect Dev Disabil; 2008 Mar; 33(1):59-64. PubMed ID: 18300168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A preliminary comparison of reinforcer assessment methods for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
    Northup J; Jones K; Broussard C; George T
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1995; 28(1):99-100. PubMed ID: 7706155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Description of a practitioner model for identifying preferred stimuli with individuals with autism spectrum disorders.
    Karsten AM; Carr JE; Lepper TL
    Behav Modif; 2011 Jul; 35(4):347-69. PubMed ID: 21613240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. The effects of contingent and noncontingent attention on self-injury and self-restraint.
    Derby KM; Fisher WW; Piazza CC
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1996; 29(1):107-10. PubMed ID: 8881350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A comparison of simultaneous and delayed reinforcement as treatments for food selectivity.
    Kern L; Marder TJ
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1996; 29(2):243-6. PubMed ID: 8682740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Integrating caregiver report with systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification.
    Fisher WW; Piazza CC; Bowman LG; Amari A
    Am J Ment Retard; 1996 Jul; 101(1):15-25. PubMed ID: 8827248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.