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)

  • 21. A Continuum of Methods for Assessing Preference for Conversation Topics.
    Kronfli FR; Morris SL; Vollmer TR
    Behav Anal Pract; 2024 Mar; 17(1):306-315. PubMed ID: 38405297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Assessing Preferences for Animals in Children with Autism: A New Use for Video-Based Preference Assessment.
    Guérin NA; Rodriguez KE; Brodhead MT; O'Haire ME
    Front Vet Sci; 2017; 4():29. PubMed ID: 28344974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Predicting preference for items during periods of extended access based on early response allocation.
    Rapp JT; Rojas NC; Colby-Dirksen AM; Swanson GJ; Marvin KL
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2010; 43(3):473-86. PubMed ID: 21358906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Single- vs. combined-category preference assessments for edible, leisure, and social-interaction stimuli.
    Goldberg NM; Roscoe EM; Newman ZA; Sedano AJ
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2023 Oct Autumn (Fall); 56(4):787-803. PubMed ID: 37470250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Applications of Preference Assessment Procedures in Depression and Agitation Management in Elders with Dementia.
    Feliciano L; Steers ME; Elite-Marcandonatou A; McLane M; Areán PA
    Clin Gerontol; 2009; 32(3):239-259. PubMed ID: 22593610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. The stability of care preferences following acute illness: a mixed methods prospective cohort study of frail older people.
    Etkind SN; Lovell N; Bone AE; Guo P; Nicholson C; Murtagh FEM; Higginson IJ
    BMC Geriatr; 2020 Sep; 20(1):370. PubMed ID: 32993526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Aesthetic Preference for Negatively-Valenced Artworks Remains Stable in Pathological Aging: A Comparison Between Cognitively Impaired Patients With Alzheimer's Disease and Healthy Controls.
    Kliem E; Forster M; Leder H
    Front Psychol; 2022; 13():879833. PubMed ID: 35719534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Comparing stimulus preference and response force in a conjugate preparation.
    Davis WT; Rapp JT; Brogan KM; Pinkston JW; Chinnappan B
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2021 Jul; 116(1):96-113. PubMed ID: 34261190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Evaluating the use of computerized stimulus preference assessments in foster care.
    Whitehouse CM; Vollmer TR; Colbert B
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2014; 47(3):470-84. PubMed ID: 24966135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Predicting Optimal Preference Assessment Methods for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities.
    Thomson KM; Czarnecki D; Martin TL; Yu CT; Martin GL
    Educ Train Dev Disabil; 2007 Mar; 42(1):107-114. PubMed ID: 23539288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Advancing Methods in Animal-Assisted Intervention: Demonstration of Starting Points in Clinical Practice for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
    Clay CJ; Schmitz BA; Hogg AD; Keicher ES; Clohisy AM; Kahng S
    Behav Anal Pract; 2023 Mar; 16(1):145-155. PubMed ID: 37006431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. The Effects of Email Performance-Based Feedback on Teacher Candidate Implementation of a Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement Preference Assessment.
    Sipila-Thomas ES; Brodhead MT; Walker AN
    J Behav Educ; 2022 Nov; ():1-23. PubMed ID: 36339812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Predicting the relative efficacy of verbal, pictorial, and tangible stimuli for assessing preferences of leisure activities.
    de Vries C; Yu CT; Sakko G; Wirth KM; Walters KL; Marion C; Martin GL
    Am J Ment Retard; 2005 Mar; 110(2):145-54. PubMed ID: 15762824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.