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 *

146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23252436)

  • 1. Assessing preferences of individuals with acquired brain injury using alternative stimulus modalities.
    Heinicke MR; Carr JE; Eastridge D; Kupfer J; Mozzoni MP
    Brain Inj; 2013; 27(1):48-59. PubMed ID: 23252436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Using pictures to assess reinforcers in individuals with developmental disabilities.
    Graff RB; Gibson L
    Behav Modif; 2003 Sep; 27(4):470-83. PubMed ID: 12971123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Predicting the relative efficacy of verbal, pictorial, and tangible stimuli for assessing preferences of leisure activities.
    de Vries C; Yu CT; Sakko G; Wirth KM; Walters KL; Marion C; Martin GL
    Am J Ment Retard; 2005 Mar; 110(2):145-54. PubMed ID: 15762824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. The effects of pairing non-preferred staff with preferred stimuli on increasing the reinforcing value of non-preferred staff attention.
    Jerome J; Sturmey P
    Res Dev Disabil; 2014 Apr; 35(4):849-60. PubMed ID: 24508066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Preference and reinforcer efficacy of high- and low-tech items: A comparison of item type and duration of access.
    Hoffmann AN; Samaha AL; Bloom SE; Boyle MA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2017 Apr; 50(2):222-237. PubMed ID: 28276573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: the utility of verbal and pictorial choice procedures.
    Northup J; George T; Jones K; Broussard C; Vollmer TR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1996; 29(2):201-12. PubMed ID: 8682736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessment of preference for varied versus constant reinforcers.
    Bowman LG; Piazza CC; Fisher WW; Hagopian LP; Kogan JS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(3):451-8. PubMed ID: 9316258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. The effects of pictorial versus tangible stimuli in stimulus-preference assessments.
    Higbee TS; Carr JE; Harrison CD
    Res Dev Disabil; 1999; 20(1):63-72. PubMed ID: 9987811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Teaching individuals with profound multiple disabilities to access preferred stimuli with multiple microswitches.
    Tam GM; Phillips KJ; Mudford OC
    Res Dev Disabil; 2011; 32(6):2352-61. PubMed ID: 21824746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Effects of reinforcement choice on task responding in individuals with developmental disabilities.
    Lerman DC; Iwata BA; Rainville B; Adelinis JD; Crosland K; Kogan J
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(3):411-22. PubMed ID: 9316256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Assessing the efficacy of pictorial preference assessments for children with developmental disabilities.
    Heinicke MR; Carr JE; Pence ST; Zias DR; Valentino AL; Falligant JM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Dec; 49(4):848-868. PubMed ID: 27529144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Assessing preference and reinforcer effectiveness in dogs.
    Vicars SM; Miguel CF; Sobie JL
    Behav Processes; 2014 Mar; 103():75-83. PubMed ID: 24270051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.