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 *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37937467)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Assessing stimulus preference using response force in a conjugate preparation: A replication and extension.
    Sheridan DJ; Rapp JT; Edgemon AK; Pinkston JW
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2024 Jul; 122(1):25-41. PubMed ID: 38837371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Shifting preferences for choice-making opportunities through histories of differential reinforcer quality.
    Drifke MA; Tiger JH; Gifford MR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2019 Feb; 52(1):227-239. PubMed ID: 30302759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A preference analysis of reinforcer variation and choice.
    Hanratty LA; Hanley GP
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2021 Jun; 54(3):1062-1074. PubMed ID: 33990131
    [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 and reinforcing efficacy of different types of attention in preschool children.
    Harper AM; Dozier CL; Briggs AM; de Villegas SD; Ackerlund Brandt JA; Jowett Hirst ES
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2021 Jun; 54(3):882-902. PubMed ID: 33567128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A comparison of paired- and multiple-stimulus-without-replacement preference assessments to identify reinforcers for dog behavior.
    Payne SW; Fulgencio CT; Aniga RN
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2023 Jul; 120(1):78-90. PubMed ID: 37199306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Relative preference for distinct reinforcers maintaining destructive behavior.
    Norris HM; Greer BD
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2024 Mar; 57(2):358-371. PubMed ID: 38131231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparison of synchronous and noncontingent stimulus delivery on task engagement.
    Hardesty EM; Lerman DC; Hardee JL
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2023 Jun; 56(3):664-673. PubMed ID: 37077129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Using stimulus preference assessments to identify preferred break environments.
    Castelluccio NT; Johnson C
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2019 Jul; 52(3):772-787. PubMed ID: 31016724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.