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)

  • 21. Assessing visual attention in young children and adolescents with severe mental retardation utilizing conditional-discrimination tasks and multiple testing procedures.
    Huguenin NH
    Res Dev Disabil; 2004; 25(2):155-81. PubMed ID: 15026092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Assessing preference and reinforcer effectiveness in dogs.
    Vicars SM; Miguel CF; Sobie JL
    Behav Processes; 2014 Mar; 103():75-83. PubMed ID: 24270051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Assessing preferences for positive and negative reinforcement during treatment of destructive behavior with functional communication training.
    Fisher WW; Adelinis JD; Volkert VM; Keeney KM; Neidert PL; Hovanetz A
    Res Dev Disabil; 2005; 26(2):153-68. PubMed ID: 15590246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A comparison of verbal and tangible stimulus preference assessments.
    Cohen-Almeida D; Graff RB; Ahearn WH
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(3):329-34. PubMed ID: 11051576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Assessing preferences of individuals with acquired brain injury using alternative stimulus modalities.
    Heinicke MR; Carr JE; Eastridge D; Kupfer J; Mozzoni MP
    Brain Inj; 2013; 27(1):48-59. PubMed ID: 23252436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Effects of reinforcer magnitude and alternative reinforcer delay on preference for alcohol during a multiple-choice procedure.
    Benson TA; Little CS; Henslee AM; Correia CJ
    Drug Alcohol Depend; 2009 Feb; 100(1-2):161-3. PubMed ID: 19013028
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Further evaluation of the multiple-stimulus preference assessment.
    Higbee TS; Carr JE; Harrison CD
    Res Dev Disabil; 2000; 21(1):61-73. PubMed ID: 10750166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Assessing food preferences among persons with profound mental retardation: providing opportunities to make choices.
    Parsons MB; Reid DH
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1990; 23(2):183-95. PubMed ID: 2373654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Training staff to conduct a paired-stimulus preference assessment.
    Lavie T; Sturmey P
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2002; 35(2):209-11. PubMed ID: 12102143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. An evaluation of preference stability within MSWO preference assessments for children with autism.
    Melanson IJ; Thomas AL; Brodhead MT; Sipila-Thomas ES; Miranda DRG; Plavnick JB; Joy TA; Fisher MH; White-Cascarilla AN
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2023 Jun; 56(3):638-655. PubMed ID: 37166411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Employing computer technology to assess visual attention in young children and adolescents with severe mental retardation.
    Huguenin NH
    J Exp Child Psychol; 1997 May; 65(2):141-70. PubMed ID: 9169208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. The effects of pictorial versus tangible stimuli in stimulus-preference assessments.
    Higbee TS; Carr JE; Harrison CD
    Res Dev Disabil; 1999; 20(1):63-72. PubMed ID: 9987811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.