A Review of Questionnaire Measures for Assessing the Social Climate in Prisons and Forensic Psychiatric Hospitals

Abstract

Significant time and resources are devoted to the monitoring of social climate in secure settings. However, if these efforts are to help (rather than hinder) attempts to improve the functioning of such units, the monitoring of social climate must be based on sound psychometric methods. The aim of this review was to determine what questionnaires exist to measure the social climate in secure settings and what evidence exists regarding their psychometric properties. Twelve questionnaire-based measures of social climate were identified. The Essen Climate Evaluation Schema has received the most consistent empirical support, but this questionnaire does not provide as much of an in-depth, detailed insight into social climate as that provided by other social climate questionnaires. Although more extensive measures of climate exist, they have not yet received sufficient validation to justify their routine use in practice. Nevertheless, there is growing evidence that some questionnaire-based measures can provide a reliable and valid assessment of the social climate in secure settings, which has important clinical and theoretical implications.

Ward Climate Within a High Secure Forensic Psychiatric Hospital: Perceptions of Patients and Nursing Staff and the Role of Patient Characteristics

“…al., 2012). Tonkin (2015) reported in a review ten studies on the internal consistency of the EssenCES, the mean Cronbach's alpha's ranged from: .82 (PC), .77 (ES), and .81 (TH).…”

“…Ward climate can be seen as a multifactorial construct including the material, social, and emotional conditions of a given ward and the interaction between these factors (Moos, 1989;Tonkin, 2015). Ward climate is found to play a role in therapeutic outcomes like drop out-, release-, and re-admission rates (Moos, Shelton, & Petty, 1973), patient satisfaction (Bressington, Stewart, Beer, & MacInnes, 2011;Middelboe, Schjùdt, Byrsting, & Gjerris, 2001;Nesset, Rossberg, & Almvik, 2009;Rossberg & Friis, 2004), motivation for treatment (van der Helm, Beunk, Stams, & van der Laan, 2014), treatment engagement and therapeutic alliance (Long, Anagnostakis, Fox, Silaule, Somers, West, & Webster, 2011).…”

Psychometric properties of the Group Climate Instrument (GCI) in individuals with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning

“…; Schubert et al . ; Tonkin ). Although the relationship between living group climate and treatment outcomes is well researched and well documented in forensic and psychiatric services since Moos' early research in the 1960s, research into these outcomes for individuals with MID‐BIF is largely lacking (Moos ; Willets et al .…”

“…). Tonkin () shows that living group climate can be measured in a reliable and valid manner, and several instruments are available for measuring living group climate in clients without MID‐BIF. It is important that measurements are based on solid psychometric properties; otherwise, monitoring living group climate will hinder rather than help improving the quality of client care.…”

“…As shown above, research highlights the importance of understanding living group climate in the light of effective treatment for individuals with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning (MID-BIF, Bressington et al 2011;Schubert et al 2012;Tonkin 2015). Although the relationship between living group climate and treatment outcomes is well researched and well documented in forensic and psychiatric services since Moos' early research in the 1960s, research into these outcomes for individuals with MID-BIF is largely lacking (Moos 1989;Willets et al 2014;Tonkin 2015;Bell et al 2017). Tonkin (2015) shows that living group climate can be measured in a reliable and valid manner, and several instruments are available for measuring living group climate in clients without MID-BIF.…”