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 *

210 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9378681)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 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. 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. 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. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. On the joint control of preference by time and reinforcer-ratio variation.
    Davison M; Cowie S; Elliffe D
    Behav Processes; 2013 May; 95():100-12. PubMed ID: 23410902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Preference and reinforcer efficacy of high- and low-tech items: A comparison of item type and duration of access.
    Hoffmann AN; Samaha AL; Bloom SE; Boyle MA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2017 Apr; 50(2):222-237. PubMed ID: 28276573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. On the displacement of leisure items by food during multiple-stimulus preference assessments.
    Bojak SL; Carr JE
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(4):515-8. PubMed ID: 10641304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Assessing potency of high- and low-preference reinforcers with respect to response rate and response patterns.
    Penrod B; Wallace MD; Dyer EJ
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2008; 41(2):177-88. PubMed ID: 18595282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Extended pausing by humans on multiple fixed-ratio schedules with varied reinforcer magnitude and response requirements.
    Williams DC; Saunders KJ; Perone M
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2011 Mar; 95(2):203-20. PubMed ID: 21541121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Analysis of the reinforcement and extinction components in DRO contingencies with self-injury.
    Mazaleski JL; Iwata BA; Vollmer TR; Zarcone JR; Smith RG
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1993; 26(2):143-56. PubMed ID: 8331012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Concurrent schedules: short- and long-term effects of reinforcers.
    Landon J; Davison M; Elliffe D
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2002 May; 77(3):257-71. PubMed ID: 12083679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Response allocation to concurrent fixed-ratio reinforcement schedules with work requirements by adults with mental retardation and typical preschool children.
    Cuvo AJ; Lerch LJ; Leurquin DA; Gaffaney TJ; Poppen RL
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1998; 31(1):43-63. PubMed ID: 9532750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Preference for unreliable reinforcement in children with mental retardation: the role of conditioned reinforcement.
    Lalli JS; Mauro BC; Mace FC
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(4):533-44. PubMed ID: 11214029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.