A blue social bookmark and publication sharing system.
publications
Cecile de Vries and C. T. Yu and Gina Sakko and Kirsten M. Wirth and Kerri L. Walters and Carole Marion and Garry L. Martin American Journal on Mental Retardation110(2):145-154Mar 20052005. 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; Quantit...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.
.
to Verbal Stimuli; discrimination choice behavior Stimulation; developmental Tactual stimulus leisure Pictorial modalities; preference activities; Stimulus Stimuli disability assessment Time; skills; by quinn and 1 other person on Oct 27, 2006, 9:53 PMC. T. Yu and Garry L. Martin Journal on Developmental Disabilities10(1):137-140Fal 20032003. MT: Electronic; Print; FO: Print; PO: Human; MD: Literature-Review; CRN: Number of References: 13; Displayed: 13.; REF: Conyers, C. M., Doole, A., Vause, T...MT: Electronic; Print; FO: Print; PO: Human; MD: Literature-Review; CRN: Number of References: 13; Displayed: 13.; REF: Conyers, C. M., Doole, A., Vause, T., Harapiak, S., Yu, D. C. T., & Martin, G. L. (2002). Predicting the relative efficacy of three presentation methods for assessing preferences 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. W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., & Amari, A. (1996). Integrating caregiver report with a systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101, 15-25. Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491-498. Fisher, W. W., Thompson, R. H., Piazza, C. C., Crosland, K., & Gotjen, D. (1997). On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequence. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 423-438. Green, C. W., Gardner, S. M., & Reid, D. H. (1997). Increasing indices of happiness among people with profound multiple disabilities: A program replication and component analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 217-228. Green, C. W., Reid, D. H., Canipe, V. S., & Gardner, S. M. (1991). A comprehensive evaluation of reinforcer identification processes for persons with profound multiple handicaps. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 537-552. Green, C. W., Reid, D. H., White, L. K., Haiford, R. C., Brittain, D. P., & Gardner, S. M. (1988). Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: Staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 31-43. Hughes, C., Hwang, B., Kim, J. H., Eisenman, L. T., & Killian, D. J. (1995). Quality of life in applied research: A review and analysis of empirical measures. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99, 623-641. Lohrmann-O'Rouke, S., & Browder, D. M. (1998). Empirically based methods to assess preferences of individuals with severe disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 103, 146-161. doi:10.1352/0895-8017(1998)1032.0.CO;2 Martin, G., & Yu, C. T. (2000). Overview of research on the Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities test [Special Issue]. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 7, 10-36. Pace, G. M., Ivancic, M. T., Edwards, G. L., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 249-255. 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 & Rehabilitation, 1, 1-7.
.
to Stimuli; communication choice behavior developmental stimulus Pictorial tangibles; verbal caregivers; Skills modalities; responding; disability pictures; descriptions; by quinn on Oct 27, 2006, 9:44 PM