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

184 related items for PubMed ID: 30548587

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

  • 2. 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 May; 30(3):411-22. PubMed ID: 9316256
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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 May; 47(2):293-313. PubMed ID: 24782203
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. A preference analysis of reinforcer variation and choice.
    Hanratty LA, Hanley GP.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2021 Jun; 54(3):1062-1074. PubMed ID: 33990131
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. 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 Jun; 25(2):491-8. PubMed ID: 1634435
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Context influences preference for and level of physical activity of adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
    Pincus SM, Hausman NL, Borrero JC, Kahng S.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2019 Jul; 52(3):788-795. PubMed ID: 31161604
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. 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 Jul; 31(1):43-63. PubMed ID: 9532750
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 9. Effects of a history of differential reinforcement on preference for choice.
    Karsina A, Thompson RH, Rodriguez NM.
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2011 Mar; 95(2):189-202. PubMed ID: 21541125
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. A demonstration of individual preference for novel mands during functional communication training.
    Winborn-Kemmerer L, Ringdahl JE, Wacker DP, Kitsukawa K.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2009 Mar; 42(1):185-9. PubMed ID: 19721740
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. 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 Mar; 41(2):163-76. PubMed ID: 18595281
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. The concept of automatic reinforcement: implications for behavioral research in developmental disabilities.
    Vollmer TR.
    Res Dev Disabil; 1994 Mar; 15(3):187-207. PubMed ID: 7938787
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 15. Effects of reinforcer choice measured in single-operant and concurrent-schedule procedures.
    Geckeler AS, Libby ME, Graff RB, Ahearn WH.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000 Sep; 33(3):347-51. PubMed ID: 11051580
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. 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 Sep; 30(3):439-49. PubMed ID: 9378681
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Evaluating Preference and Performance in Accumulated versus Distributed Response-Reinforcer Arrangements.
    Weston R, Davis T, Ross RK.
    Behav Modif; 2020 Nov; 44(6):909-926. PubMed ID: 31387363
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Web-based stimulus preference assessment and reinforcer assessment for videos.
    Curiel H, Poling A.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2019 Jul; 52(3):796-803. PubMed ID: 31219192
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. A comparison of two pairing procedures to establish praise as a reinforcer.
    Dozier CL, Iwata BA, Thomason-Sassi J, Worsdell AS, Wilson DM.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2012 Jul; 45(4):721-35. PubMed ID: 23322928
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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