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: 24604393)

  • 21. Teacher report and direct assessment of preferences for identifying reinforcers for young children.
    Cote CA; Thompson RH; Hanley GP; McKerchar PM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2007; 40(1):157-66. PubMed ID: 17471799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Comparison of edible and leisure reinforcers.
    Fahmie TA; Iwata BA; Jann KE
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2015; 48(2):331-43. PubMed ID: 25891170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Functional analysis and treatment of elopement.
    Piazza CC; Hanley GP; Bowman LG; Ruyter JM; Lindauer SE; Saiontz DM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(4):653-72. PubMed ID: 9433790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. The effects of establishing operations on preferences for tangible items.
    McAdam DB; Klatt KP; Koffarnus M; Dicesare A; Solberg K; Welch C; Murphy S
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2005; 38(1):107-10. PubMed ID: 15898479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. An Investigation of a Video-Based Preference Assessment of Social Interactions.
    Wolfe K; Kunnavatana SS; Shoemaker AM
    Behav Modif; 2018 Sep; 42(5):729-746. PubMed ID: 28911243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Effects of increased response effort and reinforcer delay on choice and aberrant behavior.
    Gwinn MM; Derby KM; Fisher W; Kurtz P; Fahs A; Augustine M; McLaughlin TF
    Behav Modif; 2005 Jul; 29(4):642-52. PubMed ID: 15911686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Using videos to assess preference for novel stimuli in children with autism.
    Brodhead MT; Rispoli MJ
    Dev Neurorehabil; 2017 Nov; 20(8):560-564. PubMed ID: 27739912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Stability of daily preference across multiple individuals.
    Kelley ME; Shillingsburg MA; Bowen CN
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Jun; 49(2):394-8. PubMed ID: 26816192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Assessment and treatment of aggressive behavior without a clear social function.
    Ringdahl JE; Call NA; Mews JB; Boelter EW; Christensen TJ
    Res Dev Disabil; 2008; 29(4):351-62. PubMed ID: 17646083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Changing preference from tangible to social activities through an observation procedure.
    Leaf JB; Oppenheim-Leaf ML; Townley-Cochran D; Leaf JA; Alcalay A; Milne C; Kassardjian A; Tsuji K; Dale S; Leaf R; Taubman M; McEachin J
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Mar; 49(1):49-57. PubMed ID: 26660202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. An evaluation of generalization of mands during functional communication training.
    Falcomata TS; Wacker DP; Ringdahl JE; Vinquist K; Dutt A
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2013; 46(2):444-54. PubMed ID: 24114159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.