No matching posts.
  • ⟨⟨
  • ⟩⟩

publications  1  

  •  

    , , , , , , and . American Journal on Mental Retardation, 110 (2): 145-154 (March 2005)MT: Print; FO: Print; PO: Human; Male; Female; AG: Adulthood (18-yrs-and-older); Thirties (30-39-yrs); Middle-Age (40-64-yrs); MD: Empirical-Study; Quantitative-Study; TM: Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities test; CRN: Number of References: 16; Displayed: 16.; REF: Cohen-Almeida, D., Graff, R. B., & Ahearn, W. H. (2000). A comparison of verbal and tangible stimulus preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 329-334. Conyers, C., Doole, A., Vause, T., Harapiak, S., Yu, C. T., & Martin, G. L. (2002). Predicting the relative efficiency of the three presentation methods for assessing performances of persons with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 49-58. DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519-533. Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. S., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comprehension of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491-498. Higbee, T. S., Carr, J. E., & Harrison, C. D. (1999). The effects of pictorial versus tangible stimuli in stimulus-preference assessments. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 20, 63-72. doi:10.1016/S0891-4222(98)00032-8 Higbee, T. S., Carr, J. E., & Harrison, C. D. (2000). Further evaluation of the multiple-stimulus preference assessment. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 21, 61-73. doi:10.1016/S0891-4222(99)00030-X Hughes, C., Pitkin, S. E., & Lorden, S. W. (1998). Assessing preferences and choices of persons with severe and profound mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 299-316. Logan, K. R., & Gast, D. L. (2001). Conducting preference assessments and reinforcer testing for individuals with profound multiple disabilities: Issues and procedures. Exceptionality, 9, 123-134. Lohrmann-O'Rourke, S., & Browder, D. M. (1998). Empirically based methods to assess the preferences of individuals with severe disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 103, 146-161. doi:10.1352/0895-8017(1998)1032.0.CO;2 Marion, C., Vause, T., Harapiak, S., Martin, G. L., Yu, C. T., Sakko, G., & Walters, K. (2003). The hierarchical relationship between several visual and auditory discriminations and three verbal operants among individuals with developmental disabilities. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 19, 91-105. Martin, G. L., & Pear, P. (2003). Behaviour modification: What it is and how to do it (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Martin, G. L., & Yu, C. T. (2000). Overview of research on the Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities test Special Issue. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 7(2), 10-36. Northup, J., George, T., Jones, K., Broussard, C., & Vollmer, T. R. (1996). A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: The utility of verbal and pictorial choice procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 201-212. Richards, D. F., Williams, W. L., & Follette, W. C. (2002). Two new empirically derived reasons to use the Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107, 329-339. doi:10.1352/0895-8017(2002)1072.0.CO;2 Schwartzman, L., Yu, C. T., & Martin, G. L. (2003). Choice responding as a function of choice presentation method and level of preference in persons with developmental disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Community, and Rehabilitation, 1(3), Article 3. Retrieved March 15, 2003, from http://www.ijdcr.ca/VOL01_03_CAN/articles/schwartzman.shtml Windsor, J., Piche, L. M., & Locke, P. A. (1994). Preference testing: A comparison of two presentation methods. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15, 439-455..
    18 years ago by @quinn
     
     
  • ⟨⟨
  • 1
  • ⟩⟩