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: 31976239)

  • 1. Using Pictures Depicting App Icons to Conduct an MSWO Preference Assessment on a Tablet Device.
    Hoffmann AN; Brady AM; Paskins RT; Sellers TP
    Behav Anal Pract; 2019 Jun; 12(2):335-342. PubMed ID: 31976239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. A comparison of methods for assessing preference for social interactions.
    Morris SL; Vollmer TR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2020 Apr; 53(2):918-937. PubMed ID: 32141096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Web-based stimulus preference assessment and reinforcer assessment for videos.
    Curiel H; Poling A
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2019 Jul; 52(3):796-803. PubMed ID: 31219192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Examining a Web-Based Procedure for Assessing Preference for Videos.
    Curiel H; Curiel ESL; Li A; Deochand N; Poling A
    Behav Anal Pract; 2018 Dec; 11(4):406-410. PubMed ID: 30538916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Using pictures to assess reinforcers in individuals with developmental disabilities.
    Graff RB; Gibson L
    Behav Modif; 2003 Sep; 27(4):470-83. PubMed ID: 12971123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 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 Preference and Stability of Preference for Individuals with Neurocognitive Disorder.
    Ford MN; Bayles MW; Bruzek JL
    Behav Anal Pract; 2022 Sep; 15(3):782-795. PubMed ID: 36457833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The Impact of Stimulus Presentation and Size on Preference.
    Moore JW; Radley KC; Dart EH; Whipple HM; Ness EJ; Murphy AN; Furlow C; Wimberly JK; Smith A
    Behav Anal Pract; 2017 Jun; 10(2):172-177. PubMed ID: 28630822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of a video-based assessment and a multiple stimulus assessment to identify preferred jobs for individuals with significant intellectual disabilities.
    Horrocks EL; Morgan RL
    Res Dev Disabil; 2009; 30(5):902-9. PubMed ID: 19231132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Evaluating preference assessments for use in the general education population.
    Resetar JL; Noell GH
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2008; 41(3):447-51. PubMed ID: 18816985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.