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 *

143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16270849)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment in a naturalistic context.
    Carr JE; Nicolson AC; Higbee TS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(3):353-7. PubMed ID: 11051581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences.
    DeLeon IG; Iwata BA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1996; 29(4):519-32; quiz 532-3. PubMed ID: 8995834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. In search of effective programs to address students' emotional distress and behavioral problems part III: student assessment of school-based support groups.
    Wassef A; Mason G; Collins ML; O'Boyle M; Ingham D
    Adolescence; 1996; 31(121):1-16. PubMed ID: 9173776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Emotional, behavioral, social, and academic outcomes in adolescents born with very low birth weight.
    Dahl LB; Kaaresen PI; Tunby J; Handegård BH; Kvernmo S; Rønning JA
    Pediatrics; 2006 Aug; 118(2):e449-59. PubMed ID: 16882786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Increasing the on-task homework behavior of youth with behavior disorders using functional behavioral assessment.
    Hawkins RO; Axelrod MI
    Behav Modif; 2008 Nov; 32(6):840-59. PubMed ID: 18490267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Beyond psychopathology: assessing seriously disruptive students in school settings.
    Rappaport N; Flaherty LT; Hauser ST
    J Pediatr; 2006 Aug; 149(2):252-6. PubMed ID: 16887445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A multiple-stimulus-without-replacement assessment for sexual partners: Purchase task validation.
    Jarmolowicz DP; Lemley SM; Mateos A; Sofis MJ
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Sep; 49(3):723-9. PubMed ID: 27178093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Further refinement of video-based brief multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessments.
    Brodhead MT; Abston GW; Mates M; Abel EA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2017 Jan; 50(1):170-175. PubMed ID: 27766655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Functional analysis and treatment of problem behavior exhibited by elementary school children.
    Meyer KA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(2):229-32. PubMed ID: 10396777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Integrating caregiver report with systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification.
    Fisher WW; Piazza CC; Bowman LG; Amari A
    Am J Ment Retard; 1996 Jul; 101(1):15-25. PubMed ID: 8827248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.