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

221 related items for PubMed ID: 8682736

  • 1. A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: the utility of verbal and pictorial choice procedures.
    Northup J, George T, Jones K, Broussard C, Vollmer TR.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1996; 29(2):201-12. PubMed ID: 8682736
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. A preliminary comparison of reinforcer assessment methods for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
    Northup J, Jones K, Broussard C, George T.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1995; 28(1):99-100. PubMed ID: 7706155
    [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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. The effect of reinforcer preference on functional analysis outcomes.
    Lalli JS, Kates K.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1998 Sep; 31(1):79-90. PubMed ID: 9532752
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. The effects of providing access to stimuli following choice making during vocal preference assessments.
    Tessing JL, Napolitano DA, McAdam DB, DiCesare A, Axelrod S.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2006 Sep; 39(4):501-6. PubMed ID: 17236351
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 10. Comparison of verbal preference assessments in the presence and absence of the actual stimuli.
    Kuhn DE, DeLeon IG, Terlonge C, Goysovich R.
    Res Dev Disabil; 2006 Sep; 27(6):645-56. PubMed ID: 16263239
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Evaluation of absolute and relative reinforcer value using progressive-ratio schedules.
    Francisco MT, Borrero JC, Sy JR.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2008 Sep; 41(2):189-202. PubMed ID: 18595283
    [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 Sep; 30(3):451-8. PubMed ID: 9316258
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Assessing preferences of individuals with acquired brain injury using alternative stimulus modalities.
    Heinicke MR, Carr JE, Eastridge D, Kupfer J, Mozzoni MP.
    Brain Inj; 2013 Sep; 27(1):48-59. PubMed ID: 23252436
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 15. 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 Sep; 33(1):13-27. PubMed ID: 10738949
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Correspondence between single versus daily preference assessment outcomes and reinforcer efficacy under progressive-ratio schedules.
    Call NA, Trosclair-Lasserre NM, Findley AJ, Reavis AR, Shillingsburg MA.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2012 Sep; 45(4):763-77. PubMed ID: 23322931
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Self-control: teaching tolerance for delay in impulsive children.
    Schweitzer JB, Sulzer-Azaroff B.
    J Exp Anal Behav; 1988 Sep; 50(2):173-86. PubMed ID: 3193054
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 19. Assessing the efficacy of pictorial preference assessments for children with developmental disabilities.
    Heinicke MR, Carr JE, Pence ST, Zias DR, Valentino AL, Falligant JM.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Dec; 49(4):848-868. PubMed ID: 27529144
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. The effects of pictorial versus tangible stimuli in stimulus-preference assessments.
    Higbee TS, Carr JE, Harrison CD.
    Res Dev Disabil; 1999 Dec; 20(1):63-72. PubMed ID: 9987811
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 12.