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 *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8750077)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 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. Analyzing alertness among people with profound multiple disabilities: implications for provision of training.
    Green CW; Gardner SM; Canipe VS; Reid DH
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1994; 27(3):519-31. PubMed ID: 7928793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A comprehensive evaluation of reinforcer identification processes for persons with profound multiple handicaps.
    Green CW; Reid DH; Canipe VS; Gardner SM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1991; 24(3):537-52. PubMed ID: 1836459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. An analysis of Snoezelen equipment to reinforce persons with severe or profound mental retardation.
    Matson JL; Bamburg JW; Smalls Y
    Res Dev Disabil; 2004; 25(1):89-95. PubMed ID: 14733978
    [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. 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]  

  • 8. The effects of noncontingent delivery of high- and low-preference stimuli on attention-maintained destructive behavior.
    Fisher WW; O'Connor JT; Kurtz PF; DeLeon IG; Gotjen DL
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(1):79-83. PubMed ID: 10738954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A preliminary procedure for predicting the positive and negative effects of reinforcement-based procedures.
    Piazza CC; Fisher WW; Hanley GP; Hilker K; Derby KM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1996; 29(2):137-52. PubMed ID: 8682733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Effects of alternative responses on behavior exposed to noncontingent reinforcement.
    Virues-Ortega J; Iwata BA; Fahmie TA; Harper JM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2013; 46(3):603-12. PubMed ID: 24114223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. An analysis of reinforcer substitutability using object manipulation and self-injury as competing responses.
    Shore BA; Iwata BA; DeLeon IG; Kahng S; Smith RG
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(1):21-41. PubMed ID: 9103985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A replication to increase happiness indices among some people with profound multiple disabilities.
    Ivancic MT; Barrett GT; Simonow A; Kimberly A
    Res Dev Disabil; 1997; 18(1):79-89. PubMed ID: 9085431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. An analysis of physical guidance as reinforcement for noncompliance.
    Kern L; Delaney BA; Hilt A; Bailin DE; Elliot C
    Behav Modif; 2002 Sep; 26(4):516-36. PubMed ID: 12205825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Focus on communication: improving interaction between staff and residents who have severe or profound mental retardation.
    Golden J; Reese M
    Res Dev Disabil; 1996; 17(5):363-82. PubMed ID: 8878360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A demonstration of generalization of performance across settings, materials, and motor responses for students with profound mental retardation.
    Berg WK; Wacker DP; Ebbers B; Wiggins B; Fowler M; Wilkes P
    Behav Modif; 1995 Jan; 19(1):119-43. PubMed ID: 7880157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.