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 *

160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9987811)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Using pictures to assess reinforcers in individuals with developmental disabilities.
    Graff RB; Gibson L
    Behav Modif; 2003 Sep; 27(4):470-83. PubMed ID: 12971123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Assessing the efficacy of pictorial preference assessments for children with developmental disabilities.
    Heinicke MR; Carr JE; Pence ST; Zias DR; Valentino AL; Falligant JM
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Dec; 49(4):848-868. PubMed ID: 27529144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: implications for preference assessments.
    Roscoe EM; Iwata BA; Kahng S
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1999; 32(4):479-93. PubMed ID: 10641302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Predicting the relative efficacy of verbal, pictorial, and tangible stimuli for assessing preferences of leisure activities.
    de Vries C; Yu CT; Sakko G; Wirth KM; Walters KL; Marion C; Martin GL
    Am J Ment Retard; 2005 Mar; 110(2):145-54. PubMed ID: 15762824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: the utility of verbal and pictorial choice procedures.
    Northup J; George T; Jones K; Broussard C; Vollmer TR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1996; 29(2):201-12. PubMed ID: 8682736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Assessing stimulus preference using response force in a conjugate preparation: A replication and extension.
    Sheridan DJ; Rapp JT; Edgemon AK; Pinkston JW
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2024 Jul; 122(1):25-41. PubMed ID: 38837371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness.
    Piazza CC; Fisher WW; Hagopian LP; Bowman LG; Toole L
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1996; 29(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 8881340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. The impact of high- and low-preference stimuli on vocational and academic performances of youths with severe disabilities.
    Graff RB; Gibson L; Galiatsatos GT
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2006; 39(1):131-5. PubMed ID: 16602393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Assessment of preference for varied versus constant reinforcers.
    Bowman LG; Piazza CC; Fisher WW; Hagopian LP; Kogan JS
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997; 30(3):451-8. PubMed ID: 9316258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A comparison of paired- and multiple-stimulus-without-replacement preference assessments to identify reinforcers for dog behavior.
    Payne SW; Fulgencio CT; Aniga RN
    J Exp Anal Behav; 2023 Jul; 120(1):78-90. PubMed ID: 37199306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.