Theory of Regulatory Compliance: Sequential vs Parallel Models

The theory of regulatory compliance was first proposed in 1985 with its publication and its associated methodologies in the New England Journal of Human Services and Child Care Quarterly. Since then it has morphed into two models: one which is sequential where weighting/risk assessment and key indicators/predictor methodologies are tied together where weights are a prerequisite to generating key indicator rules; and the other that is parallel in which weighting/risk assessment and key indicator/predictor approaches are viewed as being separate methodologies but encouraged to be used in tandem.

Both approaches will determine what the best rules are to prevent risk and predict compliance. However, what has not been determined is if the sequential or the parallel model is superior. Evaluation studies need to be performed to determine if one is better than the other or it doesn’t really matter which you use. When the original papers were written 40 years ago the suggested approach was the sequential model; however, over the years as the theory was embraced weighting/risk assessment and predictor/key indicator approaches were separated from each other. This actually was a good thing since Stepping Stones to Caring for Our Children and Caring for Our Children: Basics were created by using the weighting/risk assessment and predictor/key indicator approaches respectively.

The other nuanced approach within an approach is the use of relative weighting vs equal interval weighting when using the weighting/risk assessment approach. Equal interval weighting has been used with the parallel model while the relative weighting has been suggested more with the sequential model. Both weighting perspectives should be used in both models.

But now I am calling upon licensing researchers and regulatory scientists to test and make certain that there are no differential impacts in using the sequential vs the parallel models in testing the theory of regulatory compliance and finding the rules that efficiently and effectively protect clients. They also need to do the same with relative weighting and equal interval weighting in determining which is more effective or are they basically producing the same results.

I have done some preliminary testing of the two models (sequential and parallel models) and the weighting perspectives (equal interval and relative weighting). These are very preliminary and pilot testing without a full evaluation study and that is why I am suggesting other researchers and scientists take a close look at these relationships. But the trend appears to favor a sequential model utilizing a relative weighting perspective. For the interested reader, please go to https://rikinstitute.com/publications/ for the research abstracts and technical research notes that depict these results.

RJ Fiene PhD, Senior Research Psychologist and Regulatory Scientist, Penn State University’s Edna Bennett Pierce Prevention Research Center, RFiene@RIKInstitute.com