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 *

132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21613240)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Effects of tangible and social reinforcers on skill acquisition, stereotyped behavior, and task engagement in three children with autism spectrum disorders.
    Kang S; O'Reilly M; Rojeski L; Blenden K; Xu Z; Davis T; Sigafoos J; Lancioni G
    Res Dev Disabil; 2013 Feb; 34(2):739-44. PubMed ID: 23220050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Effects of two variations of differential reinforcement on prompt dependency.
    Cividini-Motta C; Ahearn WH
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2013; 46(3):640-50. PubMed ID: 24114226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Vocal stereotypy in individuals with autism spectrum disorders: a review of behavioral interventions.
    Lanovaz MJ; Sladeczek IE
    Behav Modif; 2012 Mar; 36(2):146-64. PubMed ID: 22127117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Training staff to conduct a paired-stimulus preference assessment.
    Lavie T; Sturmey P
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2002; 35(2):209-11. PubMed ID: 12102143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 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. Evaluation of some components of choice making.
    Sellers TP; Bloom SE; Samaha AL; Dayton E; Lambert JM; Keyl-Austin AA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2013; 46(2):455-64. PubMed ID: 24114160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Increased parent reinforcement of spontaneous requests in children with autism spectrum disorder: effects on problem behavior.
    Robertson RE; Wehby JH; King SM
    Res Dev Disabil; 2013 Mar; 34(3):1069-82. PubMed ID: 23299185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment in a naturalistic context.
    Carr JE; Nicolson AC; Higbee TS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(3):353-7. PubMed ID: 11051581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Application of Premack's generalization of reinforcement to modify occupational behavior in two severely retarded individuals.
    Bateman S
    Am J Ment Defic; 1975 Mar; 79(5):604-10. PubMed ID: 1121988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.