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 *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10738960)

  • 1. Further evaluation of low-ranked items in stimulus-choice preference assessments.
    Taravella CC; Lerman DC; Contrucci SA; Roane HS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(1):105-8. PubMed ID: 10738960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The effects of establishing operations on preference assessment outcomes.
    Gottschalk JM; Libby ME; Graff RB
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(1):85-8. PubMed ID: 10738955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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; 33(1):93-6. PubMed ID: 10738957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Two measures of preference during forced-choice assessments.
    Derby KM; Wacker DP; Andelman M; Berg W; Drew J; Asmus J; Prouty AM; Laffey P
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1995; 28(3):345-6. PubMed ID: 7592152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A systematic evaluation of preferences identified through person-centered planning for people with profound multiple disabilities.
    Reid DH; Everson JM; Green CW
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(4):467-77. PubMed ID: 10641301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Preferred curricular activities and reduced problem behaviors in students with intellectual disabilities.
    Foster-Johnson L; Ferro J; Dunlap G
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1994; 27(3):493-504. PubMed ID: 7928791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of a brief stimulus preference assessment.
    Roane HS; Vollmer TR; Ringdahl JE; Marcus BA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1998; 31(4):605-20. PubMed ID: 9891397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Preference for water-related items in Angelman syndrome, Down syndrome and non-specific intellectual disability.
    Didden R; Korzilius H; Sturmey P; Lancioni GE; Curfs LM
    J Intellect Dev Disabil; 2008 Mar; 33(1):59-64. PubMed ID: 18300168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Self-management approaches.
    Gardner WI; Cole CL
    Monogr Am Assoc Ment Retard; 1989; (12):19-35. PubMed ID: 2664399
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Reducing pica by teaching children to exchange inedible items for edibles.
    Kern L; Starosta K; Adelman BE
    Behav Modif; 2006 Mar; 30(2):135-58. PubMed ID: 16464843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluating the predictive validity of a single stimulus engagement preference assessment.
    Hagopian LP; Rush KS; Lewin AB; Long ES
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2001; 34(4):475-85. PubMed ID: 11800186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A comparison of verbal and tangible stimulus preference assessments.
    Cohen-Almeida D; Graff RB; Ahearn WH
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(3):329-34. PubMed ID: 11051576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment with adolescents with emotional-behavioral disorders in an educational setting.
    Paramore NW; Higbee TS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2005; 38(3):399-403. PubMed ID: 16270849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Preference assessment procedures for individuals with developmental disabilities.
    Hagopian LP; Long ES; Rush KS
    Behav Modif; 2004 Sep; 28(5):668-77. PubMed ID: 15296524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Enhancing tolerance to delayed reinforcers: the role of intervening activities.
    Dixon MR; Rehfeldt RA; Randich L
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2003; 36(2):263-6. PubMed ID: 12858992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Assessing food preferences among persons with profound mental retardation: providing opportunities to make choices.
    Parsons MB; Reid DH
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1990; 23(2):183-95. PubMed ID: 2373654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Training staff to conduct a paired-stimulus preference assessment.
    Lavie T; Sturmey P
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2002; 35(2):209-11. PubMed ID: 12102143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Integrating caregiver report with systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification.
    Fisher WW; Piazza CC; Bowman LG; Amari A
    Am J Ment Retard; 1996 Jul; 101(1):15-25. PubMed ID: 8827248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.