194 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20629593)
1. 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]
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. 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]
4. Using eye gaze to identify reinforcers for individuals with severe multiple disabilities.
Cannella-Malone HI; Sabielny LM; Tullis CA
J Appl Behav Anal; 2015 Sep; 48(3):680-4. PubMed ID: 26173986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Evaluation of assessment methods for identifying social reinforcers.
Kelly MA; Roscoe EM; Hanley GP; Schlichenmeyer K
J Appl Behav Anal; 2014; 47(1):113-35. PubMed ID: 24604393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Including unfamiliar stimuli in preference assessments for young children with autism.
Kenzer AL; Bishop MR; Wilke AE; Tarbox JR
J Appl Behav Anal; 2013; 46(3):689-94. PubMed ID: 24114234
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Examination of relative reinforcement effects of stimuli identified through pretreatment and daily brief preference assessments.
DeLeon IG; Fisher WW; Rodriguez-Catter V; Maglieri K; Herman K; Marhefka JM
J Appl Behav Anal; 2001; 34(4):463-73. PubMed ID: 11800185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A comparison between traditional economical and demand curve analyses of relative reinforcer efficacy in the validation of preference assessment predictions.
Reed DD; Luiselli JK; Magnuson JD; Fillers S; Vieira S; Rue HC
Dev Neurorehabil; 2009 Jun; 12(3):164-9. PubMed ID: 19466625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Assessing preference for social interactions.
Clay CJ; Samaha AL; Bloom SE; Bogoev BK; Boyle MA
Res Dev Disabil; 2013 Jan; 34(1):362-71. PubMed ID: 23009945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Description of a practitioner model for identifying preferred stimuli with individuals with autism spectrum disorders.
Karsten AM; Carr JE; Lepper TL
Behav Modif; 2011 Jul; 35(4):347-69. PubMed ID: 21613240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A comprehensive evaluation of reinforcer identification processes for persons with profound multiple handicaps.
Green CW; Reid DH; Canipe VS; Gardner SM
J Appl Behav Anal; 1991; 24(3):537-52. PubMed ID: 1836459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
