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 *

126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31045241)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. The impact of high- and low-preference stimuli on vocational and academic performances of youths with severe disabilities.
    Graff RB; Gibson L; Galiatsatos GT
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2006; 39(1):131-5. PubMed ID: 16602393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Stability of preference and reinforcing efficacy of edible, leisure, and social attention stimuli.
    Butler C; Graff RB
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2021 Apr; 54(2):684-699. PubMed ID: 33469909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A review of methods of assessing preference for social stimuli.
    Morris SL; Gallagher ML; Allen AE
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2023 Apr; 56(2):416-427. PubMed ID: 36922701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Assessing preferences of individuals with developmental disabilities: a survey of current practices.
    Graff RB; Karsten AM
    Behav Anal Pract; 2012; 5(2):37-48. PubMed ID: 23730465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. A comparison of picture and GIF-based preference assessments for social interaction.
    Morris SL; Vollmer TR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2020 Jul; 53(3):1452-1465. PubMed ID: 31965577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Assessing preferences for AAC options in communication interventions for individuals with developmental disabilities: a review of the literature.
    van der Meer L; Sigafoos J; O'Reilly MF; Lancioni GE
    Res Dev Disabil; 2011; 32(5):1422-31. PubMed ID: 21377833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Some determinants of changes in preference over time.
    Hanley GP; Iwata BA; Roscoe EM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2006; 39(2):189-202. PubMed ID: 16813040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.