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 *

285 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8881340)

  • 21. Including unfamiliar stimuli in preference assessments for young children with autism.
    Kenzer AL; Bishop MR; Wilke AE; Tarbox JR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2013; 46(3):689-94. PubMed ID: 24114234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Reinforcement magnitude: an evaluation of preference and reinforcer efficacy.
    Trosclair-Lasserre NM; Lerman DC; Call NA; Addison LR; Kodak T
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2008; 41(2):203-20. PubMed ID: 18595284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Evaluating self-control and impulsivity in children with severe behavior disorders.
    Vollmer TR; Borrero JC; Lalli JS; Daniel D
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(4):451-66. PubMed ID: 10641300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. A comparison of presession and within-session reinforcement choice.
    Graff RB; Libby ME
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(2):161-73. PubMed ID: 10396769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Evaluating the reinforcing effects of choice in comparison to reinforcement rate.
    Thompson RH; Fisher WW; Contrucci SA
    Res Dev Disabil; 1998; 19(2):181-7. PubMed ID: 9547528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Effects of choice making on the serious problem behaviors of students with severe handicaps.
    Dyer K; Dunlap G; Winterling V
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1990; 23(4):515-24. PubMed ID: 2074240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. An evaluation of the use of eye gaze to measure preference of individuals with severe physical and developmental disabilities.
    Fleming CV; Wheeler GM; Cannella-Malone HI; Basbagill AR; Chung YC; Day KG
    Dev Neurorehabil; 2010; 13(4):266-75. PubMed ID: 20629593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Using videos to assess preference for novel stimuli in children with autism.
    Brodhead MT; Rispoli MJ
    Dev Neurorehabil; 2017 Nov; 20(8):560-564. PubMed ID: 27739912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The effects of constant versus varied reinforcers on preference and resistance to change.
    Milo JS; Mace FC; Nevin JA
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2010 May; 93(3):385-94. PubMed ID: 21119852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. A comparison between traditional economical and demand curve analyses of relative reinforcer efficacy in the validation of preference assessment predictions.
    Reed DD; Luiselli JK; Magnuson JD; Fillers S; Vieira S; Rue HC
    Dev Neurorehabil; 2009 Jun; 12(3):164-9. PubMed ID: 19466625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.