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 *

173 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20190919)

  • 1. Evaluation of the multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessment method using activities as stimuli.
    Daly EJ; Wells NJ; Swanger-Gagné MS; Carr JE; Kunz GM; Taylor AM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2009; 42(3):563-74. PubMed ID: 20190919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Validity of the multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessment for edible items.
    Fritz JN; Roath CT; Shoemaker PT; Edwards AB; Hussein LA; Villante NK; Langlinais CA; Rettig LA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2020 Jul; 53(3):1688-1701. PubMed ID: 32307709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Comparing the results of one-session, two-session, and three-session MSWO preference assessments.
    Conine DE; Morris SL; Kronfli FR; Slanzi CM; Petronelli AK; Kalick L; Vollmer TR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2021 Apr; 54(2):700-712. PubMed ID: 33465255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluating the use of computerized stimulus preference assessments in foster care.
    Whitehouse CM; Vollmer TR; Colbert B
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2014; 47(3):470-84. PubMed ID: 24966135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. An evaluation of preference stability within MSWO preference assessments for children with autism.
    Melanson IJ; Thomas AL; Brodhead MT; Sipila-Thomas ES; Miranda DRG; Plavnick JB; Joy TA; Fisher MH; White-Cascarilla AN
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2023 Jun; 56(3):638-655. PubMed ID: 37166411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Further examination of factors that influence preference for positive versus negative reinforcement.
    Kodak T; Lerman DC; Volkert VM; Trosclair N
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2007; 40(1):25-44. PubMed ID: 17471792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Examining the generality of children's preference for contingent reinforcement via extension to different responses, reinforcers, and schedules.
    Luczynski KC; Hanley GP
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2010; 43(3):397-409. PubMed ID: 21358901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A multiple-stimulus-without-replacement assessment for sexual partners: Test-retest stability.
    Jarmolowicz DP; LeComte RS; Lemley SM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2022 Oct; 55(4):1059-1067. PubMed ID: 35739612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Comparing paired-stimulus and multiple-stimulus concurrent-chains preference assessments: Consistency, correspondence, and efficiency.
    Basile CD; Tiger JH; Lillie MA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2021 Sep; 54(4):1488-1502. PubMed ID: 34048592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Extending stimulus preference assessment with the operant demand framework.
    Gilroy SP; Waits JA; Feck C
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2021 Jun; 54(3):1032-1044. PubMed ID: 33706423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.