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 *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16602393)

  • 1. The impact of high- and low-preference stimuli on vocational and academic performances of youths with severe disabilities.
    Graff RB; Gibson L; Galiatsatos GT
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2006; 39(1):131-5. PubMed ID: 16602393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Using pictures to assess reinforcers in individuals with developmental disabilities.
    Graff RB; Gibson L
    Behav Modif; 2003 Sep; 27(4):470-83. PubMed ID: 12971123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Assessing object-to-picture and picture-to-object matching as prerequisite skills for pictorial preference assessments.
    Clevenger TM; Graff RB
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2005; 38(4):543-7. PubMed ID: 16463535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Assessing preferences of individuals with developmental disabilities using alternative stimulus modalities: A systematic review.
    Heinicke MR; Carr JE; Copsey CJ
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2019 Jul; 52(3):847-869. PubMed ID: 31045241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The effects of pictorial versus tangible stimuli in stimulus-preference assessments.
    Higbee TS; Carr JE; Harrison CD
    Res Dev Disabil; 1999; 20(1):63-72. PubMed ID: 9987811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Assessing stimulus preference using response force in a conjugate preparation: A replication and extension.
    Sheridan DJ; Rapp JT; Edgemon AK; Pinkston JW
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2024 Jul; 122(1):25-41. PubMed ID: 38837371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Preliminary investigation of a video-based stimulus preference assessment.
    Snyder K; Higbee TS; Dayton E
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2012; 45(2):413-8. PubMed ID: 22844148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 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. Elimination of position-biased responding in individuals with autism and intellectual disabilities.
    Bourret JC; Iwata BA; Harper JM; North ST
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2012; 45(2):241-50. PubMed ID: 22844134
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Stability of preference and reinforcing efficacy of edible, leisure, and social attention stimuli.
    Butler C; Graff RB
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2021 Apr; 54(2):684-699. PubMed ID: 33469909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. On the correspondence between preference assessment outcomes and progressive-ratio schedule assessments of stimulus value.
    DeLeon IG; Frank MA; Gregory MK; Allman MJ
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2009; 42(3):729-33. PubMed ID: 20190936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Further examination of video-based preference assessments without contingent access.
    Brodhead MT; Kim SY; Rispoli MJ
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2019 Feb; 52(1):258-270. PubMed ID: 30238441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Web-based stimulus preference assessment and reinforcer assessment for videos.
    Curiel H; Poling A
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2019 Jul; 52(3):796-803. PubMed ID: 31219192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A comparison of paired- and multiple-stimulus-without-replacement preference assessments to identify reinforcers for dog behavior.
    Payne SW; Fulgencio CT; Aniga RN
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2023 Jul; 120(1):78-90. PubMed ID: 37199306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Correspondence between single versus daily preference assessment outcomes and reinforcer efficacy under progressive-ratio schedules.
    Call NA; Trosclair-Lasserre NM; Findley AJ; Reavis AR; Shillingsburg MA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2012; 45(4):763-77. PubMed ID: 23322931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. A comparison of picture and GIF-based preference assessments for social interaction.
    Morris SL; Vollmer TR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2020 Jul; 53(3):1452-1465. PubMed ID: 31965577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.