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 *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11421310)

  • 1. Longitudinal analysis of leisure-item preferences.
    Zhou L; Iwata BA; Goff GA; Shore BA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2001; 34(2):179-84. PubMed ID: 11421310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Manipulating the behavior-altering effect of the motivating operation: examination of the influence on challenging behavior during leisure activities.
    O'Reilly MF; Sigafoos J; Lancioni G; Rispoli M; Lang R; Chan J; Machalicek W; Langthorne P
    Res Dev Disabil; 2008; 29(4):333-40. PubMed ID: 17629672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparing preference assessments: selection- versus duration-based preference assessment procedures.
    Kodak T; Fisher WW; Kelley ME; Kisamore A
    Res Dev Disabil; 2009; 30(5):1068-77. PubMed ID: 19327964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Treatment efficacy of noncontingent reinforcement during brief and extended application.
    Lindberg JS; Iwata BA; Roscoe EM; Worsdell AS; Hanley GP
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2003; 36(1):1-19. PubMed ID: 12723863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Displacement of leisure reinforcers by food during preference assessments.
    DeLeon IG; Iwata BA; Roscoe EM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(3):475-84. PubMed ID: 9316260
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Some determinants of changes in preference over time.
    Hanley GP; Iwata BA; Roscoe EM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2006; 39(2):189-202. PubMed ID: 16813040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Effects of deprivation on engagement in preferred activities by persons with developmental disabilities.
    Klatt KP; Sherman JA; Sheldon JB
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(4):495-506. PubMed ID: 11214025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Validating predicted activity preferences of individuals with severe disabilities.
    Newton JS; Ard WR; Horner RH
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1993; 26(2):239-45. PubMed ID: 8331020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Embedded evaluation of preferences sampled from person-centered plans for people with profound multiple disabilities.
    Green CW; Middleton SG; Reid DH
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(4):639-42. PubMed ID: 11214041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Computerized assessment of preference for severely handicapped individuals.
    Dattilo J
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1986; 19(4):445-8. PubMed ID: 2948940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Validity and reliability of the Leisure Assessment Inventory.
    Hawkins BA; Ardovino P; Hsieh CM
    Ment Retard; 1998 Aug; 36(4):303-13. PubMed ID: 9713186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Stability of preference and reinforcing efficacy of edible, leisure, and social attention stimuli.
    Butler C; Graff RB
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2021 Apr; 54(2):684-699. PubMed ID: 33469909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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; 27(6):645-56. PubMed ID: 16263239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.