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 *

118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36457833)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Utility of the multiple-stimulus without replacement procedure and stability of preferences of older adults with dementia.
    Raetz PB; LeBlanc LA; Baker JC; Hilton LC
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2013 Dec; 46(4):765-80. PubMed ID: 24730052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The Use of Stimulus Preference Assessments for Persons with Neurocognitive Disorder: A Literature Review.
    Wagner S; Buchanan JA; Bailey J; Andresen FJ; Omlie C
    Clin Gerontol; 2020; 43(3):243-255. PubMed ID: 31547777
    [No 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. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Preference for leisure items over edible items in individuals with dementia: A replication.
    Lucock ZR; Sharp RA; Jones RS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2020 Jul; 53(3):1780-1788. PubMed ID: 31957021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Using choice-making opportunities to increase activity engagement in individuals with dementia.
    LeBlanc LA; Cherup SM; Feliciano L; Sidener TM
    Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen; 2006; 21(5):318-25. PubMed ID: 17062550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.