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 *

132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26816192)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 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. 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. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Further refinement of video-based brief multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessments.
    Brodhead MT; Abston GW; Mates M; Abel EA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2017 Jan; 50(1):170-175. PubMed ID: 27766655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. The value of choice as a reinforcer for typically developing children.
    Ackerlund Brandt JA; Dozier CL; Juanico JF; Laudont CL; Mick BR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2015; 48(2):344-62. PubMed ID: 25916749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.