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 *

120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34048592)

  • 1. Comparing paired-stimulus and multiple-stimulus concurrent-chains preference assessments: Consistency, correspondence, and efficiency.
    Basile CD; Tiger JH; Lillie MA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2021 Sep; 54(4):1488-1502. PubMed ID: 34048592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evaluating the effects of social interaction on the results of preference assessments for leisure items.
    Kanaman NA; Hubbs AL; Dozier CL; Jones BA; Foley E; Brandt JA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2022 Mar; 55(2):430-450. PubMed ID: 34958457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. On the displacement of leisure items by food during multiple-stimulus preference assessments.
    Bojak SL; Carr JE
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(4):515-8. PubMed ID: 10641304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: implications for preference assessments.
    Roscoe EM; Iwata BA; Kahng S
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(4):479-93. PubMed ID: 10641302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Teacher report and direct assessment of preferences for identifying reinforcers for young children.
    Cote CA; Thompson RH; Hanley GP; McKerchar PM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2007; 40(1):157-66. PubMed ID: 17471799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. On the correspondence between preference assessment outcomes and progressive-ratio schedule assessments of stimulus value.
    DeLeon IG; Frank MA; Gregory MK; Allman MJ
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2009; 42(3):729-33. PubMed ID: 20190936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Extending stimulus preference assessment with the operant demand framework.
    Gilroy SP; Waits JA; Feck C
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2021 Jun; 54(3):1032-1044. PubMed ID: 33706423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.