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

162 related items for PubMed ID: 26333156

  • 1. Are video-based preference assessments without access to selected stimuli effective?
    Clark DR, Donaldson JM, Kahng S.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2015 Dec; 48(4):895-900. PubMed ID: 26333156
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. An Investigation of a Video-Based Preference Assessment of Social Interactions.
    Wolfe K, Kunnavatana SS, Shoemaker AM.
    Behav Modif; 2018 Sep; 42(5):729-746. PubMed ID: 28911243
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Further examination of video-based preference assessments without contingent access.
    Brodhead MT, Kim SY, Rispoli MJ.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2019 Feb; 52(1):258-270. PubMed ID: 30238441
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Using videos to assess preference for novel stimuli in children with autism.
    Brodhead MT, Rispoli MJ.
    Dev Neurorehabil; 2017 Nov; 20(8):560-564. PubMed ID: 27739912
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Including unfamiliar stimuli in preference assessments for young children with autism.
    Kenzer AL, Bishop MR, Wilke AE, Tarbox JR.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2013 Nov; 46(3):689-94. PubMed ID: 24114234
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Using Conditional Percentages During Free-Operant Stimulus Preference Assessments to Predict the Effects of Preferred Items on Stereotypy: Preliminary Findings.
    Frewing TM, Rapp JT, Pastrana SJ.
    Behav Modif; 2015 Sep; 39(5):740-65. PubMed ID: 26139834
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Increasing the efficiency of paired-stimulus preference assessments by identifying categories of preference.
    Ciccone FJ, Graff RB, Ahearn WH.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2015 Sep; 48(1):221-6. PubMed ID: 25754896
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 9. The effects of pairing non-preferred staff with preferred stimuli on increasing the reinforcing value of non-preferred staff attention.
    Jerome J, Sturmey P.
    Res Dev Disabil; 2014 Apr; 35(4):849-60. PubMed ID: 24508066
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. 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]

  • 11. Assessing preference for social interactions.
    Clay CJ, Samaha AL, Bloom SE, Bogoev BK, Boyle MA.
    Res Dev Disabil; 2013 Jan; 34(1):362-71. PubMed ID: 23009945
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 13. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Functional analysis of erratic body movement maintained by visual stimulation. Incorporating conjugate reinforcement into a paired-stimulus preference assessment.
    Rapp JT, Dozier CL, Carr JE, Patel MR, Enloe KA.
    Behav Modif; 2004 Jan; 28(1):118-32. PubMed ID: 14710709
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Caregiver preference for reinforcement-based interventions for problem behavior maintained by positive reinforcement.
    Gabor AM, Fritz JN, Roath CT, Rothe BR, Gourley DA.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Jun; 49(2):215-27. PubMed ID: 26792408
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences.
    Fisher WW, Thompson RH, Piazza CC, Crosland K, Gotjen D.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1997 Jun; 30(3):423-38. PubMed ID: 9316257
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Comparison of edible and leisure reinforcers.
    Fahmie TA, Iwata BA, Jann KE.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2015 Jun; 48(2):331-43. PubMed ID: 25891170
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Evaluation of a brief stimulus preference assessment.
    Roane HS, Vollmer TR, Ringdahl JE, Marcus BA.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1998 Jun; 31(4):605-20. PubMed ID: 9891397
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Evaluation of the rate of problem behavior maintained by different reinforcers across preference assessments.
    Kang S, O'Reilly MF, Fragale CL, Aguilar JM, Rispoli M, Lang R.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2011 Jun; 44(4):835-46. PubMed ID: 22219533
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Effects of tangible and social reinforcers on skill acquisition, stereotyped behavior, and task engagement in three children with autism spectrum disorders.
    Kang S, O'Reilly M, Rojeski L, Blenden K, Xu Z, Davis T, Sigafoos J, Lancioni G.
    Res Dev Disabil; 2013 Feb; 34(2):739-44. PubMed ID: 23220050
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 9.