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 *

281 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8881340)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Preference for reinforcers under progressive- and fixed-ratio schedules: a comparison of single and concurrent arrangements.
    Glover AC; Roane HS; Kadey HJ; Grow LL
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2008; 41(2):163-76. PubMed ID: 18595281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences.
    Fisher WW; Thompson RH; Piazza CC; Crosland K; Gotjen D
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(3):423-38. PubMed ID: 9316257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences.
    Green CW; Reid DH; White LK; Halford RC; Brittain DP; Gardner SM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1988; 21(1):31-43. PubMed ID: 2967274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Emergence of reinforcer preference as a function of schedule requirements and stimulus similarity.
    DeLeon IG; Iwata BA; Goh HL; Worsdell AS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(3):439-49. PubMed ID: 9378681
    [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. Assessing preference for social interactions.
    Clay CJ; Samaha AL; Bloom SE; Bogoev BK; Boyle MA
    Res Dev Disabil; 2013 Jan; 34(1):362-71. PubMed ID: 23009945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Analysis of free-time contingencies as positive versus negative reinforcement.
    Zarcone JR; Fisher WW; Piazza CC
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1996; 29(2):247-50. PubMed ID: 8682741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Using eye gaze to identify reinforcers for individuals with severe multiple disabilities.
    Cannella-Malone HI; Sabielny LM; Tullis CA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2015 Sep; 48(3):680-4. PubMed ID: 26173986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Assessment of a response bias for aggression over functionally equivalent appropriate behavior.
    DeLeon IG; Fisher WW; Herman KM; Crosland KC
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(1):73-7. PubMed ID: 10738953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Reinforcer variation: implications for motivating developmentally disabled children.
    Egel AL
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1981; 14(3):345-50. PubMed ID: 7298543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The effect of reinforcer preference on functional analysis outcomes.
    Lalli JS; Kates K
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1998; 31(1):79-90. PubMed ID: 9532752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.