173 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24604393)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
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. 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. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
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. 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]
15. 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]
16. Evaluation of a pre-treatment assessment to select mand topographies for functional communication training.
Ringdahl JE; Falcomata TS; Christensen TJ; Bass-Ringdahl SM; Lentz A; Dutt A; Schuh-Claus J
Res Dev Disabil; 2009; 30(2):330-41. PubMed ID: 18672344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Assessing object-to-picture and picture-to-object matching as prerequisite skills for pictorial preference assessments.
Clevenger TM; Graff RB
J Appl Behav Anal; 2005; 38(4):543-7. PubMed ID: 16463535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effects of reinforcer magnitude and distribution on preference for work schedules.
Ward-Horner JC; Pittenger A; Pace G; Fienup DM
J Appl Behav Anal; 2014; 47(3):623-7. PubMed ID: 24825241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Evaluation of the rate of problem behavior maintained by different reinforcers across preference assessments.
Kang S; O'Reilly MF; Fragale CL; Aguilar JM; Rispoli M; Lang R
J Appl Behav Anal; 2011; 44(4):835-46. PubMed ID: 22219533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
