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

204 related items for PubMed ID: 11051581

  • 1.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No 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. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. 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]

  • 6. An evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment with adolescents with emotional-behavioral disorders in an educational setting.
    Paramore NW, Higbee TS.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2005 Jun; 38(3):399-403. PubMed ID: 16270849
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Evaluating the predictive validity of a single stimulus engagement preference assessment.
    Hagopian LP, Rush KS, Lewin AB, Long ES.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2001 Jun; 34(4):475-85. PubMed ID: 11800186
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. 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 Jun; 27(6):645-56. PubMed ID: 16263239
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Effects of increased response effort and reinforcer delay on choice and aberrant behavior.
    Gwinn MM, Derby KM, Fisher W, Kurtz P, Fahs A, Augustine M, McLaughlin TF.
    Behav Modif; 2005 Jul; 29(4):642-52. PubMed ID: 15911686
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. A brief computer-based assessment of reinforcer dimensions affecting choice.
    Neef NA, Lutz MN.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2001 Jul; 34(1):57-60. PubMed ID: 11317987
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 11.