231 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11800185)
1. Examination of relative reinforcement effects of stimuli identified through pretreatment and daily brief preference assessments.
DeLeon IG; Fisher WW; Rodriguez-Catter V; Maglieri K; Herman K; Marhefka JM
J Appl Behav Anal; 2001; 34(4):463-73. PubMed ID: 11800185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Increasing the efficiency of paired-stimulus preference assessments by identifying categories of preference.
Ciccone FJ; Graff RB; Ahearn WH
J Appl Behav Anal; 2015; 48(1):221-6. PubMed ID: 25754896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Examination of ambiguous stimulus preferences with duration-based measures.
DeLeon IG; Iwata BA; Conners J; Wallace MD
J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(1):111-4. PubMed ID: 10201108
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. An evaluation of the use of eye gaze to measure preference of individuals with severe physical and developmental disabilities.
Fleming CV; Wheeler GM; Cannella-Malone HI; Basbagill AR; Chung YC; Day KG
Dev Neurorehabil; 2010; 13(4):266-75. PubMed ID: 20629593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Evaluating the use of computerized stimulus preference assessments in foster care.
Whitehouse CM; Vollmer TR; Colbert B
J Appl Behav Anal; 2014; 47(3):470-84. PubMed ID: 24966135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Including unfamiliar stimuli in preference assessments for young children with autism.
Kenzer AL; Bishop MR; Wilke AE; Tarbox JR
J Appl Behav Anal; 2013; 46(3):689-94. PubMed ID: 24114234
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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; 30(3):411-22. PubMed ID: 9316256
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Stability of daily preference across multiple individuals.
Kelley ME; Shillingsburg MA; Bowen CN
J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Jun; 49(2):394-8. PubMed ID: 26816192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Preference and reinforcer efficacy of high- and low-tech items: A comparison of item type and duration of access.
Hoffmann AN; Samaha AL; Bloom SE; Boyle MA
J Appl Behav Anal; 2017 Apr; 50(2):222-237. PubMed ID: 28276573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The effects of brief and extended stimulus availability on preference.
Steinhilber J; Johnson C
J Appl Behav Anal; 2007; 40(4):767-72. PubMed ID: 18189114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The effects of establishing operations on preferences for tangible items.
McAdam DB; Klatt KP; Koffarnus M; Dicesare A; Solberg K; Welch C; Murphy S
J Appl Behav Anal; 2005; 38(1):107-10. PubMed ID: 15898479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. An evaluation of a stimulus preference assessment of auditory stimuli for adolescents with developmental disabilities.
Horrocks E; Higbee TS
Res Dev Disabil; 2008; 29(1):11-20. PubMed ID: 17097267
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluation of assessment methods for identifying social reinforcers.
Kelly MA; Roscoe EM; Hanley GP; Schlichenmeyer K
J Appl Behav Anal; 2014; 47(1):113-35. PubMed ID: 24604393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Using progressive ratio schedules to evaluate tokens as generalized conditioned reinforcers.
Russell D; Ingvarsson ET; Haggar JL; Jessel J
J Appl Behav Anal; 2018 Jan; 51(1):40-52. PubMed ID: 29193060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences.
Fisher WW; Thompson RH; Piazza CC; Crosland K; Gotjen D
J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(3):423-38. PubMed ID: 9316257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Teacher report and direct assessment of preferences for identifying reinforcers for young children.
Cote CA; Thompson RH; Hanley GP; McKerchar PM
J Appl Behav Anal; 2007; 40(1):157-66. PubMed ID: 17471799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
