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)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Are video-based preference assessments without access to selected stimuli effective?
    Clark DR; Donaldson JM; Kahng S
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2015 Dec; 48(4):895-900. PubMed ID: 26333156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. A comparison of preference-assessment methods.
    Verriden AL; Roscoe EM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Jun; 49(2):265-85. PubMed ID: 27037669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Evaluation of absolute and relative reinforcer value using progressive-ratio schedules.
    Francisco MT; Borrero JC; Sy JR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2008; 41(2):189-202. PubMed ID: 18595283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. On the relation between reinforcer efficacy and preference.
    Lee MS; Yu CT; Martin TL; Martin GL
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2010 Mar; 43(1):95-100. PubMed ID: 20808498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Single- vs. combined-category preference assessments for edible, leisure, and social-interaction stimuli.
    Goldberg NM; Roscoe EM; Newman ZA; Sedano AJ
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2023 Oct Autumn (Fall); 56(4):787-803. PubMed ID: 37470250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Examination of the influence of contingency on changes in reinforcer value.
    DeLeon IG; Gregory MK; Frank-Crawford MA; Allman MJ; Wilke AE; Carreau-Webster AB; Triggs MM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2011; 44(3):543-58. PubMed ID: 21941384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.