Reflections and Critical Directions for Toilet Training in Applied Behavior Analysis

Bacotti et al. (2023) read every toilet-training paper written from a behavior-analytic view. They looked at old classics and new studies. They asked: what do we still not know?

They did not run a new experiment. They told a story about the research trail and pointed out holes in the map.

Most toilet-training studies are decades old. Few meet today’s ethics rules. Almost none ask parents what ‘success’ means to them.

The field keeps using the same two or three protocols. No one checks if they still fit modern values or diverse families.

Kemmerer et al. (2023) also found that caregiver-training papers rarely measure social validity up front. Both reviews say: ask families early, not after the fact.

Colombo et al. (2021) showed that half of BCBAs start severe-behavior cases with zero training. Bacotti’s team adds toilet training to the ‘training-gap’ list.

LaMarca et al. (2024) give the ADDIE design cycle as a fix. Bacotti’s paper sets the agenda; ADDIE gives the toolbox.

Your next toilet-training case can start with a parent survey. Ask what ‘toilet trained’ looks like in their home. Pick an evidence-based protocol, then track both accidents and parent stress. Write it in plain language in the behavior plan. One small shift puts ethics and social validity up front instead of tacked on at the end.