285 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]
