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 *

155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7541398)

  • 1. Reinforcer assessment for children with developmental disabilities and visual impairments.
    Paclawskyj TR; Vollmer TR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1995; 28(2):219-24. PubMed ID: 7541398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. An evaluation of a stimulus preference assessment of auditory stimuli for adolescents with developmental disabilities.
    Horrocks E; Higbee TS
    Res Dev Disabil; 2008; 29(1):11-20. PubMed ID: 17097267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of verbal preference assessments in the presence and absence of the actual stimuli.
    Kuhn DE; DeLeon IG; Terlonge C; Goysovich R
    Res Dev Disabil; 2006; 27(6):645-56. PubMed ID: 16263239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An evaluation of the use of eye gaze to measure preference of individuals with severe physical and developmental disabilities.
    Fleming CV; Wheeler GM; Cannella-Malone HI; Basbagill AR; Chung YC; Day KG
    Dev Neurorehabil; 2010; 13(4):266-75. PubMed ID: 20629593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Examination of ambiguous stimulus preferences with duration-based measures.
    DeLeon IG; Iwata BA; Conners J; Wallace MD
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(1):111-4. PubMed ID: 10201108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Adaptive behavior of children and adolescents with visual impairments.
    Papadopoulos K; Metsiou K; Agaliotis I
    Res Dev Disabil; 2011; 32(3):1086-96. PubMed ID: 21320765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Pre-assessment exposure to schedule-correlated stimuli affects choice responding for tasks.
    Kelley ME; Shamlian K; Lomas JE; Pabico RS
    Res Dev Disabil; 2011; 32(2):527-31. PubMed ID: 21232917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Assessing the efficacy of pictorial preference assessments for children with developmental disabilities.
    Heinicke MR; Carr JE; Pence ST; Zias DR; Valentino AL; Falligant JM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Dec; 49(4):848-868. PubMed ID: 27529144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effects of choice of stimuli as reinforcement for task responding in reinforcement for task responding in preschoolers with and without developmental disabilities.
    Waldron-Soler KM; Martella RC; Marchand-Martella NE; Ebey TL
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(1):93-6. PubMed ID: 10738957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Development of a test battery (NPM-X) for neuropsychological and neuromotor examination of children with developmental disabilities or mental retardation. A theoretical and clinical study.
    Gjaerum B
    Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl; 1997; 390():1-55. PubMed ID: 9212855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effects of increased response effort and reinforcer delay on choice and aberrant behavior.
    Gwinn MM; Derby KM; Fisher W; Kurtz P; Fahs A; Augustine M; McLaughlin TF
    Behav Modif; 2005 Jul; 29(4):642-52. PubMed ID: 15911686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Integrating caregiver report with systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification.
    Fisher WW; Piazza CC; Bowman LG; Amari A
    Am J Ment Retard; 1996 Jul; 101(1):15-25. PubMed ID: 8827248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A comparison between traditional economical and demand curve analyses of relative reinforcer efficacy in the validation of preference assessment predictions.
    Reed DD; Luiselli JK; Magnuson JD; Fillers S; Vieira S; Rue HC
    Dev Neurorehabil; 2009 Jun; 12(3):164-9. PubMed ID: 19466625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Preference assessment procedures for individuals with developmental disabilities.
    Hagopian LP; Long ES; Rush KS
    Behav Modif; 2004 Sep; 28(5):668-77. PubMed ID: 15296524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Human performance on a two-alternative rapid-acquisition choice task.
    Lie C; Harper DN; Hunt M
    Behav Processes; 2009 Jun; 81(2):244-9. PubMed ID: 19015013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Assessing preference for social interactions.
    Clay CJ; Samaha AL; Bloom SE; Bogoev BK; Boyle MA
    Res Dev Disabil; 2013 Jan; 34(1):362-71. PubMed ID: 23009945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment in a naturalistic context.
    Carr JE; Nicolson AC; Higbee TS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(3):353-7. PubMed ID: 11051581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.