Elien Neimeijer

98 item is: ‘Group workers treat me with respect’. The Growth scale (6 items) assesses cli- ents’ perceptions on possibilities for learning and hope for the future during their stay in the center. An example item is: ‘I learn the right things here’. The Repression scale (7 items) assesses client’s perceptions of strictness and control, unfair and haphazard rules. An example item is: ‘You have to ask permission for everything here’. The Atmosphere scale (5 items) assesses the social interaction among clients in terms of mutual trust, their feelings of safety at the group, as well as how clients perceive the physical envi- ronment at the group, such as daylight and fresh air at the group. An example item is: ‘We trust each other here’. The internal consistency reliability was sufficient to good for the subscales Support ( α = .88), Growth ( α = .81), Atmosphere ( α = .75), and repression ( α = .70). Work Climate. The Living Group Work Climate Inventory (LGWCI; Dekker, Van Miert, & Van der Helm, 2019) was used to measure several aspects of the work climate as perceived by sociotherapists. The LGWCI comprises 21 scales that measure differ- ent aspects of work climate. In this study, the following scales were used: Positive team functioning (8 items), Negative team functioning (10 items), Perceived workload (8 items), Leadership (16 items), Work environment (7 items), Job satisfaction (7 items) and Shared vision (5 items). Items were rated on a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (I do not agree) to 5 (I totally agree). The internal consistency reliability of the scales was sufficient to good for the scales Positive team functioning (α = .84), Negative Team Functioning ( α = .76), Workload ( α = .78), Leadership ( α = .81), Work Environment ( α = .67), Job Satisfaction ( α = .75), and Shared vision ( α = .61). Statistical analyses First, bivariate correlations (Pearson’s r) were examined between all study variables. Because work climate and group climate were measured from different perspectives (i.e., sociotherapists’ perception of work climate and clients’ perception of group climate), we used group mean scores in the analyses. Thus, correlations between work climate and group climate were analysed at the group level. Subsequently, we tested the study hy- potheses in a structural equation model (SEM). We hypothesised an indirect effect of the work climate factors Perceived workload, Leadership, Work environment, Job satisfac- tion, and Shared Vision on Group climate (consisting of Support, Growth, Atmosphere, and Repression), mediated by the work climate factors Positive and Negative team func-