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 *

211 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25754896)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Web-based stimulus preference assessment and reinforcer assessment for videos.
    Curiel H; Poling A
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2019 Jul; 52(3):796-803. PubMed ID: 31219192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.