Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Tangible preference assessments were compared with pictorial preference assessments for 4 individuals with developmental disabilities. In the tangible assessment, on each trial two stimuli were selected and placed in front of the participant, who approached one. In the pictorial assessment, on each trial two line drawings were placed in front of the participant, who pointed to one. For both assessments, the percentage of opportunities each stimulus was approached or touched was calculated, and hierarchies of preferred items were developed. The two assessments yielded similar preference hierarchies for 3 of 4 participants. Reinforcer assessments using a simple free operant response confirmed that items identified as highly preferred on tangible and pictorial assessments functioned as reinforcers.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0145445503255602 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!