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 *

157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9210309)

  • 1. Toward the development of structured criteria for interpretation of functional analysis data.
    Hagopian LP; Fisher WW; Thompson RH; Owen-DeSchryver J; Iwata BA; Wacker DP
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(2):313-25; quiz 326. PubMed ID: 9210309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Interrater agreement between visual analysts of single-case data: a meta-analysis.
    Ninci J; Vannest KJ; Willson V; Zhang N
    Behav Modif; 2015 Jul; 39(4):510-41. PubMed ID: 25878161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. An exploration of the interrater agreement of visual analysis with and without context.
    Ford ALB; Rudolph BN; Pennington B; Byiers BJ
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2020 Jan; 53(1):572-583. PubMed ID: 30924129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reliability and validity of using structured visual-inspection criteria to interpret latency-based functional analysis outcomes.
    Sunde E; Briggs AM; Mitteer DR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2022 Jun; 55(3):871-890. PubMed ID: 35485501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Interrater Agreement on the Visual Analysis of Individual Tiers and Functional Relations in Multiple Baseline Designs.
    Wolfe K; Seaman MA; Drasgow E
    Behav Modif; 2016 Nov; 40(6):852-873. PubMed ID: 27103183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A survey evaluation of the reliability of visual inspection and functional analysis graphs.
    Danov SE; Symons FJ
    Behav Modif; 2008 Nov; 32(6):828-39. PubMed ID: 18490266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Using modified visual-inspection criteria to interpret functional analysis outcomes.
    Roane HS; Fisher WW; Kelley ME; Mevers JL; Bouxsein KJ
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2013; 46(1):130-46. PubMed ID: 24114090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. An intervention to improve the interrater reliability of clinical EEG interpretations.
    Azuma H; Hori S; Nakanishi M; Fujimoto S; Ichikawa N; Furukawa TA
    Psychiatry Clin Neurosci; 2003 Oct; 57(5):485-9. PubMed ID: 12950702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The influence of data characteristics on interrater agreement among visual analysts.
    Wolfe K; Seaman MA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2023 Apr; 56(2):365-376. PubMed ID: 36855817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Interrater agreement and interrater reliability: key concepts, approaches, and applications.
    Gisev N; Bell JS; Chen TF
    Res Social Adm Pharm; 2013; 9(3):330-8. PubMed ID: 22695215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Interobserver agreement, intraobserver reliability, and the Rorschach Comprehensive System.
    Acklin MW; McDowell CJ; Verschell MS; Chan D
    J Pers Assess; 2000 Feb; 74(1):15-47. PubMed ID: 10779931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The diagnosis of mental disorders: the problem of reification.
    Hyman SE
    Annu Rev Clin Psychol; 2010; 6():155-79. PubMed ID: 17716032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Consistent visual analyses of intrasubject data.
    Kahng S; Chung KM; Gutshall K; Pitts SC; Kao J; Girolami K
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2010 Mar; 43(1):35-45. PubMed ID: 20808494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Moisture lesions: interrater agreement and reliability.
    Kottner J; Halfens R
    J Clin Nurs; 2010 Mar; 19(5-6):716-20. PubMed ID: 20500314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Inter-rater reliability and validity of the OPD-CA axes structure and conflict].
    Benecke C; Bock A; Wieser E; Tschiesner R; Lochmann M; Küspert F; Schorn R; Viertler B; Steinmayr-Gensluckner M
    Prax Kinderpsychol Kinderpsychiatr; 2011; 60(1):60-73. PubMed ID: 21381388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Preliminary comparative study of the personality disorder evaluation DIP instrument with the semi-structured SCID-II interview].
    Massoubre C; Bonnefond H; Grosselin A; Nelva A; Pellet J; Lang F
    Encephale; 2009 Dec; 35(6):544-53. PubMed ID: 20004285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Predictive validity and efficiency of ongoing visual-inspection criteria for interpreting functional analyses.
    Saini V; Fisher WW; Retzlaff BJ
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2018 Apr; 51(2):303-320. PubMed ID: 29527741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Interpretive Reliability of Six Computer-Based Test Interpretation Programs for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2.
    Deskovitz MA; Weed NC; McLaughlan JK; Williams JE
    Assessment; 2016 Apr; 23(2):250-61. PubMed ID: 25944798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Differences in psychiatric expertise of responsibility: Assessment and initial hypotheses through a review of literature].
    Guivarch J; Piercecchi-Marti MD; Glezer D; Chabannes JM
    Encephale; 2015 Jun; 41(3):244-50. PubMed ID: 25864036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Intra- and interrater agreement with cumulative defect curves.
    Chan AB; Chauhan BC; LeBlanc RP; McCormick TA; Shaw AM
    J Glaucoma; 1997 Apr; 6(2):117-22. PubMed ID: 9098820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.