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 *

139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32307709)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 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. A multiple-stimulus-without-replacement assessment for sexual partners: Test-retest stability.
    Jarmolowicz DP; LeComte RS; Lemley SM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2022 Oct; 55(4):1059-1067. PubMed ID: 35739612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Systematic assessment of food item preference and reinforcer effectiveness: Enhancements in training laboratory-housed rhesus macaques.
    Martin AL; Franklin AN; Perlman JE; Bloomsmith MA
    Behav Processes; 2018 Dec; 157():445-452. PubMed ID: 30003936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Relative preferences for edible and leisure stimuli in children with autism: A replication in Italy.
    Slanzi CM; Graziano M; D'Angelo G; Vollmer TR; Conine DE
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2020 Sep; 53(4):2429-2439. PubMed ID: 31835275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effects of Magnitude on the Displacement of Leisure Items by Edible Items During Preference Assessments.
    Clark SB; Call NA; Simmons CA; Scheithauer MC; Muething CS; Parks N
    Behav Modif; 2020 Sep; 44(5):727-745. PubMed ID: 30983381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 19. Assessing the value of choice in a token system.
    Sran SK; Borrero JC
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2010; 43(3):553-7. PubMed ID: 21358919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.