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 *

149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7541398)

  • 41. Prevalence and significance of minor anomalies in children with impaired development.
    Ulovec Z; Sosić Z; Skrinjarić I; Catović A; Civljak M; Szirovicza L
    Acta Paediatr; 2004 Jun; 93(6):836-40. PubMed ID: 15244236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Effects of systematically depriving access to computer-based stimuli on choice responding with individuals with intellectual disabilities.
    Reyer HS; Sturmey P
    Res Dev Disabil; 2009; 30(6):1177-87. PubMed ID: 19577424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. 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]  

  • 44. A comparison of children's performance on two recognition memory tasks: delayed nonmatch-to-sample versus visual paired-comparison.
    Overman WH; Bachevalier J; Sewell F; Drew J
    Dev Psychobiol; 1993 Sep; 26(6):345-57. PubMed ID: 8119484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Health-related quality of life of children with vision impairment or blindness.
    Boulton M; Haines L; Smyth D; Fielder A
    Dev Med Child Neurol; 2006 Aug; 48(8):656-61. PubMed ID: 16836777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Effects of deprivation on engagement in preferred activities by persons with developmental disabilities.
    Klatt KP; Sherman JA; Sheldon JB
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(4):495-506. PubMed ID: 11214025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Assessment of the relative reinforcing strength of cocaine in socially housed monkeys using a choice procedure.
    Czoty PW; McCabe C; Nader MA
    J Pharmacol Exp Ther; 2005 Jan; 312(1):96-102. PubMed ID: 15340005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Disentangling dimensions in the dimensional change card-sorting task.
    Kloo D; Perner J
    Dev Sci; 2005 Jan; 8(1):44-56. PubMed ID: 15647066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Visual dysfunctions and ocular disorders in children with developmental delay. I. prevalence, diagnoses and aetiology of visual impairment.
    Nielsen LS; Skov L; Jensen H
    Acta Ophthalmol Scand; 2007 Mar; 85(2):149-56. PubMed ID: 17263780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Assessing choice making among children with multiple disabilities.
    Sigafoos J; Dempsey R
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1992; 25(3):747-55. PubMed ID: 1429325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Reinforcer choice as an antecedent versus consequence.
    Peterson C; Lerman DC; Nissen MA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Jun; 49(2):286-93. PubMed ID: 26792252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities.
    Fisher W; Piazza CC; Bowman LG; Hagopian LP; Owens JC; Slevin I
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1992; 25(2):491-8. PubMed ID: 1634435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. 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]  

  • 54. Stability of daily preference across multiple individuals.
    Kelley ME; Shillingsburg MA; Bowen CN
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Jun; 49(2):394-8. PubMed ID: 26816192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Preference and reinforcer efficacy of high- and low-tech items: A comparison of item type and duration of access.
    Hoffmann AN; Samaha AL; Bloom SE; Boyle MA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2017 Apr; 50(2):222-237. PubMed ID: 28276573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Using eye gaze to identify reinforcers for individuals with severe multiple disabilities.
    Cannella-Malone HI; Sabielny LM; Tullis CA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2015 Sep; 48(3):680-4. PubMed ID: 26173986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. A comparison of presession and within-session reinforcement choice.
    Graff RB; Libby ME
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(2):161-73. PubMed ID: 10396769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Assessing preferences of individuals with developmental disabilities using alternative stimulus modalities: A systematic review.
    Heinicke MR; Carr JE; Copsey CJ
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2019 Jul; 52(3):847-869. PubMed ID: 31045241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Assessing object-to-picture and picture-to-object matching as prerequisite skills for pictorial preference assessments.
    Clevenger TM; Graff RB
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2005; 38(4):543-7. PubMed ID: 16463535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.