44 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19327964)
1. Teacher report and direct assessment of preferences for identifying reinforcers for young children.
Cote CA; Thompson RH; Hanley GP; McKerchar PM
J Appl Behav Anal; 2007; 40(1):157-66. PubMed ID: 17471799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The multiple-stimulus-without-replacement preference assessment tool and its predictive validity.
Curiel H; Curiel ESL; Villanueva S; Ayala CEG; Cadigan AS
J Appl Behav Anal; 2024 Jan; 57(1):226-235. PubMed ID: 37937467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Some determinants of changes in preference over time.
Hanley GP; Iwata BA; Roscoe EM
J Appl Behav Anal; 2006; 39(2):189-202. PubMed ID: 16813040
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Systematic assessment of food item preference and reinforcer effectiveness: Enhancements in training laboratory-housed rhesus macaques.
Martin AL; Franklin AN; Perlman JE; Bloomsmith MA
Behav Processes; 2018 Dec; 157():445-452. PubMed ID: 30003936
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. An evaluation of preference for video and in vivo modeling.
Geiger KB; Leblanc LA; Dillon CM; Bates SL
J Appl Behav Anal; 2010; 43(2):279-83. PubMed ID: 21119901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Single- vs. combined-category preference assessments for edible, leisure, and social-interaction stimuli.
Goldberg NM; Roscoe EM; Newman ZA; Sedano AJ
J Appl Behav Anal; 2023 Oct Autumn (Fall); 56(4):787-803. PubMed ID: 37470250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Interventions for Increasing Acceptance of New Foods Among Children and Adults with Developmental Disorders: A Systematic Review.
Chawner LR; Blundell-Birtill P; Hetherington MM
J Autism Dev Disord; 2019 Sep; 49(9):3504-3525. PubMed ID: 31124025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. An Evaluation of a Brief Video-Based Multiple-Stimulus Without Replacement Preference Assessment.
Brodhead MT; Al-Dubayan MN; Mates M; Abel EA; Brouwers L
Behav Anal Pract; 2016 Jun; 9(2):160-4. PubMed ID: 27606245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Toward Maximizing Assessment Efficiency: A Synthesized Trial-Based Functional Analysis and Competing Stimulus Assessment.
Shawler LA; Castaneda-Velazquez G; Lafo G
Behav Sci (Basel); 2024 Apr; 14(5):. PubMed ID: 38785863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Preference testing: a comparison of two presentation methods.
Windsor J; Piché LM; Locke PA
Res Dev Disabil; 1994; 15(6):439-55. PubMed ID: 7871232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Distributed and accumulated reinforcement arrangements: evaluations of efficacy and preference.
DeLeon IG; Chase JA; Frank-Crawford MA; Carreau-Webster AB; Triggs MM; Bullock CE; Jennett HK
J Appl Behav Anal; 2014; 47(2):293-313. PubMed ID: 24782203
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of the rate of problem behavior maintained by different reinforcers across preference assessments.
Kang S; O'Reilly MF; Fragale CL; Aguilar JM; Rispoli M; Lang R
J Appl Behav Anal; 2011; 44(4):835-46. PubMed ID: 22219533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. 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]
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. Preference assessment procedures for individuals with developmental disabilities.
Hagopian LP; Long ES; Rush KS
Behav Modif; 2004 Sep; 28(5):668-77. PubMed ID: 15296524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
