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 *

108 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11936545)

  • 1. Predicting the relative efficacy of three presentation methods for assessing preferences of persons with developmental disabilities.
    Conyers C; Doole A; Vause T; Harapiak S; Yu DC; Martin GL
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2002; 35(1):49-58. PubMed ID: 11936545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities (ABLA) test predicts the relative efficacy of task preferences for persons with developmental disabilities.
    Reyer HS; Sturmey P
    J Intellect Disabil Res; 2006 Jun; 50(Pt 6):404-9. PubMed ID: 16672034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. The assessment of basic learning abilities test for predicting learning of persons with intellectual disabilities: a review.
    Martin GL; Thorsteinsson JR; Yu CT; Martin TL; Vause T
    Behav Modif; 2008 Mar; 32(2):228-47. PubMed ID: 18285508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Predicting the relative efficacy of verbal, pictorial, and tangible stimuli for assessing preferences of leisure activities.
    de Vries C; Yu CT; Sakko G; Wirth KM; Walters KL; Marion C; Martin GL
    Am J Ment Retard; 2005 Mar; 110(2):145-54. PubMed ID: 15762824
    [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. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Discrimination Skills Predict Effective Preference Assessment Methods for Adults with Developmental Disabilities.
    Lee MS; Nguyen D; Yu CT; Thorsteinsson JR; Martin TL; Martin GL
    Educ Train Dev Disabil; 2008 Sep; 43(3):388-396. PubMed ID: 23536743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Assessing choice making among children with multiple disabilities.
    Sigafoos J; Dempsey R
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1992; 25(3):747-55. PubMed ID: 1429325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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; 27(1):48-59. PubMed ID: 23252436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Assessing preference for social interactions.
    Clay CJ; Samaha AL; Bloom SE; Bogoev BK; Boyle MA
    Res Dev Disabil; 2013 Jan; 34(1):362-71. PubMed ID: 23009945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Two methods for teaching simple visual discriminations to learners with severe disabilities.
    Graff RB; Green G
    Res Dev Disabil; 2004; 25(3):295-307. PubMed ID: 15134794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.