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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

114 related items for PubMed ID: 11051576

  • 1. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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
    [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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Comparing preference assessments: selection- versus duration-based preference assessment procedures.
    Kodak T, Fisher WW, Kelley ME, Kisamore A.
    Res Dev Disabil; 2009 Sep; 30(5):1068-77. PubMed ID: 19327964
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Further evaluation of low-ranked items in stimulus-choice preference assessments.
    Taravella CC, Lerman DC, Contrucci SA, Roane HS.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2000 Sep; 33(1):105-8. PubMed ID: 10738960
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. An evaluation of a stimulus preference assessment of auditory stimuli for adolescents with developmental disabilities.
    Horrocks E, Higbee TS.
    Res Dev Disabil; 2008 Sep; 29(1):11-20. PubMed ID: 17097267
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 12. Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences.
    DeLeon IG, Iwata BA.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1996 Sep; 29(4):519-32; quiz 532-3. PubMed ID: 8995834
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. 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 Sep; 38(4):543-7. PubMed ID: 16463535
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No 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 Sep; 39(1):131-5. PubMed ID: 16602393
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 6.