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 *

123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27766655)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Evaluation of the multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessment method using activities as stimuli.
    Daly EJ; Wells NJ; Swanger-Gagné MS; Carr JE; Kunz GM; Taylor AM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2009; 42(3):563-74. PubMed ID: 20190919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. An Evaluation of a Brief Video-Based Multiple-Stimulus Without Replacement Preference Assessment.
    Brodhead MT; Al-Dubayan MN; Mates M; Abel EA; Brouwers L
    Behav Anal Pract; 2016 Jun; 9(2):160-4. PubMed ID: 27606245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. An evaluation of preference stability within MSWO preference assessments for children with autism.
    Melanson IJ; Thomas AL; Brodhead MT; Sipila-Thomas ES; Miranda DRG; Plavnick JB; Joy TA; Fisher MH; White-Cascarilla AN
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2023 Jun; 56(3):638-655. PubMed ID: 37166411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Correspondence between single versus daily preference assessment outcomes and reinforcer efficacy under progressive-ratio schedules.
    Call NA; Trosclair-Lasserre NM; Findley AJ; Reavis AR; Shillingsburg MA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2012; 45(4):763-77. PubMed ID: 23322931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparing the results of one-session, two-session, and three-session MSWO preference assessments.
    Conine DE; Morris SL; Kronfli FR; Slanzi CM; Petronelli AK; Kalick L; Vollmer TR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2021 Apr; 54(2):700-712. PubMed ID: 33465255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Problem behavior during preference assessments: an empirical analysis and practical recommendations.
    Kang S; Lang RB; O'Reilly MF; Davis TN; Machalicek W; Rispoli MJ; Chan JM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2010 Mar; 43(1):137-41. PubMed ID: 20808505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Training staff to conduct a paired-stimulus preference assessment.
    Lavie T; Sturmey P
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2002; 35(2):209-11. PubMed ID: 12102143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Validity of the multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessment for edible items.
    Fritz JN; Roath CT; Shoemaker PT; Edwards AB; Hussein LA; Villante NK; Langlinais CA; Rettig LA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2020 Jul; 53(3):1688-1701. PubMed ID: 32307709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Preliminary investigation of a video-based stimulus preference assessment.
    Snyder K; Higbee TS; Dayton E
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2012; 45(2):413-8. PubMed ID: 22844148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. An evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment with adolescents with emotional-behavioral disorders in an educational setting.
    Paramore NW; Higbee TS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2005; 38(3):399-403. PubMed ID: 16270849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A multiple-stimulus-without-replacement assessment for sexual partners: Purchase task validation.
    Jarmolowicz DP; Lemley SM; Mateos A; Sofis MJ
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Sep; 49(3):723-9. PubMed ID: 27178093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The multiple-stimulus-without-replacement preference assessment tool and its predictive validity.
    Curiel H; Curiel ESL; Villanueva S; Ayala CEG; Cadigan AS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2024 Jan; 57(1):226-235. PubMed ID: 37937467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Reinforcer choice as an antecedent versus consequence.
    Peterson C; Lerman DC; Nissen MA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Jun; 49(2):286-93. PubMed ID: 26792252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.