Elien Neimeijer

107 Considering the theoretical link between work climate and group climate and the as- sumption in daily practice that a positive work climate is necessary to create a therapeu- tic group climate, it is interesting to consider possible explanations for the unconfirmed hypotheses. First of all, it is important to keep in mind that work climate and group climate are complex and multifactorial constructs which are difficult to grasp in statis- tical models. Although self-report questionnaires such as the GCI and the LGWCI can measure group- and work climate in a reliable, valid and pragmatic manner in clinical practice, these instruments measure a simplified construct of work- and group climate. Therefore, some studies advocate for a more in-depth insight and operationalization of group climate, for example through individual interviews with sociotherapists and cli- ents about their experiences of their shared living and work environment (Doyle, Quayle, & Newman, 2017). It would be premature to make strong claims about the relation be- tween work- and group climate based on this study and a dataset limited to two sources (questionnaires among individuals with MID-BIF and sociotherapists in one organisa- tion). Arguably, a more comprehensive measure of work- and group climate would also include data from other sources as part of routine monitoring. This data could be drawn from a range of sources, including incident reporting databases containing reports of aggressive incidents, self-harm, changes in sociotherapist and client composition, and changes to working practices at the living group. These are all factors that might affect work- and group climate within secure forensic settings and, therefore, are of impor- tance to help clinicians and researchers better understand and interpret work- and group climate data regarding a certain living group. It is also possible that group climate aspects such as support and atmosphere are less related to work climate and/or team functioning than assumed. This would mean that the experienced group climate is mainly influenced by individual characteristics of the participants, sociotherapists or other contextual factors. Indeed, when using Bronfen- brenner’s ecological theory, it should be noted that not all factors within the exosystem which comprises contextual, external factors that directly influence sociotherapists and indirectly clients, are taken into account in this study. An example is the prevailing or- ganisational culture. After all, factors in the meso- and exosystem together determine the quality of the work climate as perceived by sociotherapists. However, considering studies on parallel processes between work- and group climate factors, it is more likely that char- acteristics of the present study (such as setting or client characteristics) caused the partly unexpected results. For example, Neimeijer (2013) found a significant relation between