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 *

205 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15296524)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Empirically based methods to assess the preferences of individuals with severe disabilities.
    Lohrmann-O'Rourke S; Browder DM
    Am J Ment Retard; 1998 Sep; 103(2):146-61. PubMed ID: 9779282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Establishing operations and reinforcement effects.
    Vollmer TR; Iwata BA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1991; 24(2):279-91. PubMed ID: 1890048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Reinforcer assessment for children with developmental disabilities and visual impairments.
    Paclawskyj TR; Vollmer TR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1995; 28(2):219-24. PubMed ID: 7541398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Behavioral interventions to reduce the pica of persons with developmental disabilities.
    McAdam DB; Sherman JA; Sheldon JB; Napolitano DA
    Behav Modif; 2004 Jan; 28(1):45-72. PubMed ID: 14710707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Assessment and treatment of aggressive behavior without a clear social function.
    Ringdahl JE; Call NA; Mews JB; Boelter EW; Christensen TJ
    Res Dev Disabil; 2008; 29(4):351-62. PubMed ID: 17646083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Functional assessment of problem behaviors in adults with mental retardation.
    Paclawskyj TR; Kurtz PF; O'Connor JT
    Behav Modif; 2004 Sep; 28(5):649-67. PubMed ID: 15296523
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities.
    Fisher W; Piazza CC; Bowman LG; Hagopian LP; Owens JC; Slevin I
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1992; 25(2):491-8. PubMed ID: 1634435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Evaluation of a pre-treatment assessment to select mand topographies for functional communication training.
    Ringdahl JE; Falcomata TS; Christensen TJ; Bass-Ringdahl SM; Lentz A; Dutt A; Schuh-Claus J
    Res Dev Disabil; 2009; 30(2):330-41. PubMed ID: 18672344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Sensitivity theory and mental retardation: why functional analysis is not enough.
    Reiss S; Havercamp SM
    Am J Ment Retard; 1997 May; 101(6):553-66. PubMed ID: 9152472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.