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)

  • 41. 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]  

  • 42. The effects of providing access to stimuli following choice making during vocal preference assessments.
    Tessing JL; Napolitano DA; McAdam DB; DiCesare A; Axelrod S
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2006; 39(4):501-6. PubMed ID: 17236351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. 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]  

  • 44. The effects of work-reinforcer schedules on performance and preference in students with autism.
    Bukala M; Hu MY; Lee R; Ward-Horner JC; Fienup DM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2015; 48(1):215-20. PubMed ID: 25688839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Increasing accurate preference assessment implementation through pyramidal training.
    Pence ST; St Peter CC; Tetreault AS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2012; 45(2):345-59. PubMed ID: 22844141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals.
    Pace GM; Ivancic MT; Edwards GL; Iwata BA; Page TJ
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1985; 18(3):249-55. PubMed ID: 4044458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Further evaluation of low-ranked items in stimulus-choice preference assessments.
    Taravella CC; Lerman DC; Contrucci SA; Roane HS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(1):105-8. PubMed ID: 10738960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences.
    Fisher WW; Thompson RH; Piazza CC; Crosland K; Gotjen D
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(3):423-38. PubMed ID: 9316257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Using stimulus preference assessments to identify preferred break environments.
    Castelluccio NT; Johnson C
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2019 Jul; 52(3):772-787. PubMed ID: 31016724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. A comparison of paired- and multiple-stimulus-without-replacement preference assessments to identify reinforcers for dog behavior.
    Payne SW; Fulgencio CT; Aniga RN
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2023 Jul; 120(1):78-90. PubMed ID: 37199306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. 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]  

  • 52. 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]  

  • 53. 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]  

  • 54. 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]  

  • 55. 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]  

  • 56. Choice and preference assessment research with people with severe to profound developmental disabilities: a review of the literature.
    Cannella HI; O'Reilly MF; Lancioni GE
    Res Dev Disabil; 2005; 26(1):1-15. PubMed ID: 15590233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Further evaluation of the multiple-stimulus preference assessment.
    Higbee TS; Carr JE; Harrison CD
    Res Dev Disabil; 2000; 21(1):61-73. PubMed ID: 10750166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Assessing preferences of individuals with developmental disabilities using alternative stimulus modalities: A systematic review.
    Heinicke MR; Carr JE; Copsey CJ
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2019 Jul; 52(3):847-869. PubMed ID: 31045241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Emergence of reinforcer preference as a function of schedule requirements and stimulus similarity.
    DeLeon IG; Iwata BA; Goh HL; Worsdell AS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(3):439-49. PubMed ID: 9378681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. 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]  

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