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 *

44 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19327964)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Noncontingent reinforcement is an empirically supported treatment for problem behavior exhibited by individuals with developmental disabilities.
    Carr JE; Severtson JM; Lepper TL
    Res Dev Disabil; 2009; 30(1):44-57. PubMed ID: 18467073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The sampling distribution of kappa.
    McLean AP
    Behav Processes; 2006 Jun; 72(3):300-8. PubMed ID: 16621335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Arranging response requirements and the distribution of reinforcers: A brief review of preference and performance outcomes.
    Ward-Horner JC; Cengher M; Ross RK; Fienup DM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2017 Jan; 50(1):181-185. PubMed ID: 27699787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A review of empirical support for differential reinforcement of alternative behavior.
    Petscher ES; Rey C; Bailey JS
    Res Dev Disabil; 2009; 30(3):409-25. PubMed ID: 18929460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. A review of methods of assessing preference for social stimuli.
    Morris SL; Gallagher ML; Allen AE
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2023 Apr; 56(2):416-427. PubMed ID: 36922701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Clinical decision making and preference assessment for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
    Virués-Ortega J; Pritchard K; Grant RL; North S; Hurtado-Parrado C; Lee MS; Temple B; Julio F; Yu CT
    Am J Intellect Dev Disabil; 2014 Mar; 119(2):151-70. PubMed ID: 24679351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Leisure items as controls in the attention condition of functional analyses.
    McCord BE; Neef NA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2005; 38(3):417-26. PubMed ID: 16270852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.