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 *

171 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7871232)

  • 1. Preference testing: a comparison of two presentation methods.
    Windsor J; Piché LM; Locke PA
    Res Dev Disabil; 1994; 15(6):439-55. PubMed ID: 7871232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness.
    Piazza CC; Fisher WW; Hagopian LP; Bowman LG; Toole L
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1996; 29(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 8881340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Reinforcing efficacy of interactions with preferred and nonpreferred staff under progressive-ratio schedules.
    Jerome J; Sturmey P
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2008; 41(2):221-5. PubMed ID: 18595285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Displacement of leisure reinforcers by food during preference assessments.
    DeLeon IG; Iwata BA; Roscoe EM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(3):475-84. PubMed ID: 9316260
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Task variation versus task repetition for people with profound developmental disabilities: an assessment of preferences.
    Lancioni GE; O'Reilly MF; Campodonico F; Mantini M
    Res Dev Disabil; 1998; 19(2):189-99. PubMed ID: 9547529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Using pictures to assess reinforcers in individuals with developmental disabilities.
    Graff RB; Gibson L
    Behav Modif; 2003 Sep; 27(4):470-83. PubMed ID: 12971123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Response-restriction analysis: I. Assessment of activity preferences.
    Hanley GP; Iwata BA; Lindberg JS; Conners J
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2003; 36(1):47-58. PubMed ID: 12723866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Analysis of activity preferences as a function of differential consequences.
    Hanley GP; Iwata BA; Lindberg JS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(4):419-35. PubMed ID: 10641298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Parametric analysis of delayed primary and conditioned reinforcers.
    Leon Y; Borrero JC; DeLeon IG
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Sep; 49(3):639-55. PubMed ID: 27174440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities.
    Fisher W; Piazza CC; Bowman LG; Hagopian LP; Owens JC; Slevin I
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1992; 25(2):491-8. PubMed ID: 1634435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effects of reinforcement choice on task responding in individuals with developmental disabilities.
    Lerman DC; Iwata BA; Rainville B; Adelinis JD; Crosland K; Kogan J
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(3):411-22. PubMed ID: 9316256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Current limits to reinforcer identification for some persons with profound multiple disabilities.
    Ivancic MT; Bailey JS
    Res Dev Disabil; 1996; 17(1):77-92. PubMed ID: 8750077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Assessment of preference for varied versus constant reinforcers.
    Bowman LG; Piazza CC; Fisher WW; Hagopian LP; Kogan JS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(3):451-8. PubMed ID: 9316258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Assisting older adults with severe disabilities in expressing leisure preferences: a protocol for determining choice-making skills.
    Parsons MB; Harper VN; Jensen JM; Reid DH
    Res Dev Disabil; 1997; 18(2):113-26. PubMed ID: 9172280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Teaching choice making during social interactions to students with profound multiple disabilities.
    Kennedy CH; Haring TG
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1993; 26(1):63-76. PubMed ID: 8473259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Defining, validating, and increasing indices of happiness among people with profound multiple disabilities.
    Green CW; Reid DH
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1996; 29(1):67-78. PubMed ID: 8881345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluation of an efficient method for training staff to implement stimulus preference assessments.
    Roscoe EM; Fisher WW
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2008; 41(2):249-54. PubMed ID: 18595289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Variables affecting the efficacy of a token economy.
    Westphal CR
    Ment Retard; 1975 Dec; 13(6):32-4. PubMed ID: 1196126
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.