219 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9532750)
1. 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]
2. Comparison of reinforcement schedules in the reduction of stereotypy with supported routines.
Saunders MD; Saunders RR; Marquis JG
Res Dev Disabil; 1998; 19(2):99-122. PubMed ID: 9547523
[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. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Effects of token reinforcement schedules on work rate: a case study.
Miltenberger RG; Fuqua RW
Am J Ment Defic; 1983 Sep; 88(2):229-32. PubMed ID: 6638084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Carryover effects of free reinforcement on children's work completion.
Martens BK; Hilt AM; Needham LR; Sutterer JR; Panahon CJ; Lannie AL
Behav Modif; 2003 Sep; 27(4):560-77. PubMed ID: 12971128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Noncontingent reinforcement: effects of satiation versus choice responding.
Fisher WW; Thompson RH; DeLeon IG; Piazza CC; Kuhn DE; Rodriguez-Catter V; Adelinis JD
Res Dev Disabil; 1999; 20(6):411-27. PubMed ID: 10641251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluating different values of effort and reinforcement parameters under concurrent- and single-operant arrangements.
Lozy ED; Sy JR
J Appl Behav Anal; 2019 May; 52(2):516-533. PubMed ID: 30548587
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Evaluation of client preference for function-based treatment packages.
Hanley GP; Piazza CC; Fisher WW; Contrucci SA; Maglieri KA
J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(3):459-73. PubMed ID: 9316259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Efficacy of and preference for reinforcement and response cost in token economies.
Jowett Hirst ES; Dozier CL; Payne SW
J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Jun; 49(2):329-45. PubMed ID: 26916640
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
