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 *

255 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11800186)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. A comparison between traditional economical and demand curve analyses of relative reinforcer efficacy in the validation of preference assessment predictions.
    Reed DD; Luiselli JK; Magnuson JD; Fillers S; Vieira S; Rue HC
    Dev Neurorehabil; 2009 Jun; 12(3):164-9. PubMed ID: 19466625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. The detrimental effects of physical restraint as a consequence for inappropriate classroom behavior.
    Magee SK; Ellis J
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2001; 34(4):501-4. PubMed ID: 11800190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Competing stimuli in the treatment of multiply controlled problem behavior during hygiene routines.
    Long ES; Hagopian LP; Deleon IG; Marhefka JM; Resau D
    Res Dev Disabil; 2005; 26(1):57-69. PubMed ID: 15590238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Description of a practitioner model for identifying preferred stimuli with individuals with autism spectrum disorders.
    Karsten AM; Carr JE; Lepper TL
    Behav Modif; 2011 Jul; 35(4):347-69. PubMed ID: 21613240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Using a Time Timer to increase appropriate waiting behavior in a child with developmental disabilities.
    Grey I; Healy O; Leader G; Hayes D
    Res Dev Disabil; 2009; 30(2):359-66. PubMed ID: 18926663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Duration-based measures of preference for vocational tasks.
    Worsdell AS; Iwata BA; Wallace MD
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2002; 35(3):287-90. PubMed ID: 12365742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Effects of systematically depriving access to computer-based stimuli on choice responding with individuals with intellectual disabilities.
    Reyer HS; Sturmey P
    Res Dev Disabil; 2009; 30(6):1177-87. PubMed ID: 19577424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Effects of increased response effort and reinforcer delay on choice and aberrant behavior.
    Gwinn MM; Derby KM; Fisher W; Kurtz P; Fahs A; Augustine M; McLaughlin TF
    Behav Modif; 2005 Jul; 29(4):642-52. PubMed ID: 15911686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Choice and preference assessment research with people with severe to profound developmental disabilities: a review of the literature.
    Cannella HI; O'Reilly MF; Lancioni GE
    Res Dev Disabil; 2005; 26(1):1-15. PubMed ID: 15590233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Comparison of the predictive validity and consistency among preference assessment procedures: a review of the literature.
    Kang S; O'Reilly M; Lancioni G; Falcomata TS; Sigafoos J; Xu Z
    Res Dev Disabil; 2013 Apr; 34(4):1125-33. PubMed ID: 23357675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Individualized sampling parameters for behavioral observations: enhancing the predictive validity of competing stimulus assessments.
    DeLeon IG; Toole LM; Gutshall KA; Bowman LG
    Res Dev Disabil; 2005; 26(5):440-55. PubMed ID: 16168882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.