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 *

363 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8995834)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. An evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment with adolescents with emotional-behavioral disorders in an educational setting.
    Paramore NW; Higbee TS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2005; 38(3):399-403. PubMed ID: 16270849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. A comprehensive evaluation of reinforcer identification processes for persons with profound multiple handicaps.
    Green CW; Reid DH; Canipe VS; Gardner SM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1991; 24(3):537-52. PubMed ID: 1836459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Response-reinforcer relations and resistance to change.
    Podlesnik CA; Shahan TA
    Behav Processes; 2008 Jan; 77(1):109-25. PubMed ID: 17706897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effects of subject- versus experimenter-selected reinforcers on the behavior of individuals with profound developmental disabilities.
    Smith RG; Iwata BA; Shore BA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1995; 28(1):61-71. PubMed ID: 7706151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Noncontingent delivery of arbitrary reinforcers as treatment for self-injurious behavior.
    Fischer SM; Iwata BA; Mazaleski JL
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(2):239-49. PubMed ID: 9210304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.