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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

196 related items for PubMed ID: 26916640

  • 1. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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 Jun; 40(1):25-44. PubMed ID: 17471792
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Evaluation of client preference for function-based treatment packages.
    Hanley GP, Piazza CC, Fisher WW, Contrucci SA, Maglieri KA.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997 Jun; 30(3):459-73. PubMed ID: 9316259
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: implications for preference assessments.
    Roscoe EM, Iwata BA, Kahng S.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1999 Jun; 32(4):479-93. PubMed ID: 10641302
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Evaluating the influence of postsession reinforcement on choice of reinforcers.
    Kodak T, Lerman DC, Call N.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2007 Jun; 40(3):515-27. PubMed ID: 17970264
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Sociometric and disruptive behavior as a function of four types of token reinforcement programs.
    Drabman R, Spitalnik R, Spitalnik K.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1974 Jun; 7(1):93-101. PubMed ID: 4619117
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. 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 Jun; 33(1):93-6. PubMed ID: 10738957
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. 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 Jun; 41(2):203-20. PubMed ID: 18595284
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Assessment of preference for varied versus constant reinforcers.
    Bowman LG, Piazza CC, Fisher WW, Hagopian LP, Kogan JS.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997 Jun; 30(3):451-8. PubMed ID: 9316258
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Distributed and accumulated reinforcement arrangements: evaluations of efficacy and preference.
    DeLeon IG, Chase JA, Frank-Crawford MA, Carreau-Webster AB, Triggs MM, Bullock CE, Jennett HK.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2014 Jun; 47(2):293-313. PubMed ID: 24782203
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 10.