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 *

81 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9779282)

  • 1. Empirically based methods to assess the preferences of individuals with severe disabilities.
    Lohrmann-O'Rourke S; Browder DM
    Am J Ment Retard; 1998 Sep; 103(2):146-61. PubMed ID: 9779282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Validating predicted activity preferences of individuals with severe disabilities.
    Newton JS; Ard WR; Horner RH
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1993; 26(2):239-45. PubMed ID: 8331020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Embedded evaluation of preferences sampled from person-centered plans for people with profound multiple disabilities.
    Green CW; Middleton SG; Reid DH
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(4):639-42. PubMed ID: 11214041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A systematic evaluation of preferences identified through person-centered planning for people with profound multiple disabilities.
    Reid DH; Everson JM; Green CW
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(4):467-77. PubMed ID: 10641301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Preferred curricular activities and reduced problem behaviors in students with intellectual disabilities.
    Foster-Johnson L; Ferro J; Dunlap G
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1994; 27(3):493-504. PubMed ID: 7928791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effects of establishing operations on preference assessment outcomes.
    Gottschalk JM; Libby ME; Graff RB
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000; 33(1):85-8. PubMed ID: 10738955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Treatment of behavior disorders in mental retardation: report on transitioning to atypical antipsychotics, with an emphasis on risperidone.
    Aman MG; Gharabawi GM;
    J Clin Psychiatry; 2004 Sep; 65(9):1197-210. PubMed ID: 15367046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Two measures of preference during forced-choice assessments.
    Derby KM; Wacker DP; Andelman M; Berg W; Drew J; Asmus J; Prouty AM; Laffey P
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1995; 28(3):345-6. PubMed ID: 7592152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Computerized assessment of preference for severely handicapped individuals.
    Dattilo J
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1986; 19(4):445-8. PubMed ID: 2948940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Multi-sensory rooms: comparing effects of the Snoezelen and the Stimulus Preference environment on the behavior of adults with profound mental retardation.
    Fava L; Strauss K
    Res Dev Disabil; 2010; 31(1):160-71. PubMed ID: 19815373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Longitudinal analysis of leisure-item preferences.
    Zhou L; Iwata BA; Goff GA; Shore BA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2001; 34(2):179-84. PubMed ID: 11421310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Choice and preference assessment research with people with severe to profound developmental disabilities: a review of the literature.
    Cannella HI; O'Reilly MF; Lancioni GE
    Res Dev Disabil; 2005; 26(1):1-15. PubMed ID: 15590233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Reducing indices of unhappiness among individuals with profound multiple disabilities during therapeutic exercise routines.
    Green CW; Reid DH
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(2):137-46; quiz 146-7. PubMed ID: 10396767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.