📜 Post with us on Reddit
📝 Create a new article
🏭 Create a company page
🇬🇧 - in English
🇫🇷 - en Français (FR)
🇵🇹 - em Português (PT)
🇩🇪 - in Deutsch (DE)
🇯🇵 - 日本語で (JA)
Sponsored articles

You can edit almost every page by Creating an account. Otherwise, see the FAQ.

Residential group climate

From EverybodyWiki Bios & Wiki


This Wiki is about residential (living) group climate in care for adults and children with severe behavioral, psychiatric, criminal and other problems who live in therapy groups in open or secure care. When in care, therapy mostly is a small part of one’s daily living: the other 23 hours.[1] of living are perhaps more important for motivation and recovery when provided with basic psychological needs like relatedness, competence and autonomy[2]

First residential (living) group climate is explained and defined (1 & 2). Then the introduction (3) explains the construct and historical background (4). In the following sections properties of living group climate (5) and experiences how to measure climate are explored (6). Examples of evidence based methods for climate improvement (7) are described, followed by an explanation of the learning climate in special education (8) and work climate (9) connected to living group climate. The different settings in which climate research has been performed are briefly mentioned in section 10.

Explanation of residential (living) group climate[edit]

Sometimes people, e.g. children, adults and adolescents cannot live at home because the home environment is unsafe or they display behavioral problems. They live for example in foster care, family-style (residential) youth care, secure care or youth prison, and adults have to live in special homes or shelters, half-way houses, residential care, mental hospitals or prisons. They all live in groups with others, not being family or self-chosen to live with and share in common their perception of a residential (living) group climate.

Synonyms also used are:

  • Ward climate
  • Prison climate
  • Family-style climate
  • Residential (youth care) climate
  • Foster care climate
  • Shelter climate
  • Housing climate

Defenition[edit]

Residential group climate can be defined as the quality of the social- and physical environment in terms of the provision of sufficient and necessary conditions for physical and mental health, well-being and personal growth of the residents, with respect for their human dignity and human rights as well as (if not restricted by judicial measures) their personal autonomy, aimed at participation in society’.[3]

Introduction[edit]

It has long been recognized in psychology, that whenever people live together, social climate is of relevance for mental health, personal well-being and growth. Especially the impact of a negative (living) group climate on wellbeing and mental health has been demonstrated by scholars. For example, neurobiological research shows feelings of isolation directly affect pain regions in the brain[4] and affect interpersonal behavior negatively.[5] This negative behavior often leads to further isolation and even coercive and judicial measures by others (negative transactional processes)[6], and further deteriorating climate perceptions. Patterson and Bank[7] call this a coercive cycle, resulting in more deviant and aggressive behavior.[8] It is therefore an important quality aspect of institutions to maintain a positive living group climate and motivate clients[9] for change and recovery.[3]

Residential (living) group climate is important to improve quality of service. However it is a subjective concept, so it is important to define crucial aspects and subsequently measure important aspects of the climate. Thereby institutions can keep improving growth and participation chances of children and clients, and so reducing problem behavior and recidivism, and at the same time improving executive functioning, cognitive-, social-emotional and personal growth. Residential (living) group climate (hereafter called: ‘living group climate’) is not new: already before World War II some practitioners concerned themselves with the climate in their institutions.

Historical background[edit]

The notion that living group climate is important for behavior and recovery is not new. Already before World War II the Jewish doctor Janusz Korczak, director of two Jewish orphanages in Warsaw, was experimenting giving more autonomy to his children. In 1961 Erving Goffman wrote his seminal book ‘Asylums’ detailing his theory of the “total institution” and describing the lack of autonomy patients had.[10] In the sixties of the previous age Trieschmann and Whittaker wrote a book called ‘the other 23 hours’,[11] referring to the hours patients were not having official therapy but were coached by mental health nurses or social workers, which was later called ‘sociotherapy’. The Dutch pedagogue professor Kok[12] formulated his ‘three strategy’ theory for effective treatment. The first strategy was a good living group climate on which a second-degree strategy (excellent professional behavior by staff) and a third degree-strategy (evidence based individual therapy) could be built. In retrospective he turned out to be right. In the two meta-analyses of Weisz[13][14] it was later found no single (3th degree strategy) could reach more effectiveness in treatment over 20%, but most times in clinical cases less. Therefore effective treatment should probably include living group climate as well as professional behavior by staff.[3][15]

After the realization, single therapies and pharmaceutics only would not provide for effective answers in treatment, more interest in climate factors and professional behavior was slowly to emerge in the past ten years. As climate is a fuzzy construct, it became important to anchor the construct in a grounded theory.

Crucial aspects of living group climate: basic psychological needs[edit]

In order to look for crucial aspects of climate to improve motivation for behavior and recovery an important motivational theory, Self Determination Theory (SDT), which has gained much empirical support during the past decades, can be called upon to provide some answers.[9] This SDT asserts there are three basic psychological needs which can be applied to the social living group climate: autonomy (5.1), competence (5.2) and relatedness (5.3). In living group climate atmosphere also plays an important role (5.4).

Autonomy[edit]

There is ample research showing when children and clients are able to make their own choices this will produce a better learning effect and more motivation for learning compared to forced (or ‘introjected’) motivation.[16] Also, personality development, which is strongly related to development, motivation and behavior is fostered by autonomy.[2][16][17] In secure residential care, housing and prison, autonomy is often severely restricted or even rejected by group workers and staff.[15] This tendency to restrict autonomy of the child or client by repression is often augmented by existing punishment and reward systems[3] and fear of staff for losing control over the children or clients.[8][18] Opposed to this tendency, according to SDT, (secure) residential and forensic youth care staff should learn to grant more autonomy and to enable shared decision making with youths and clients in order to enhance treatment motivation.[8][19][20]

Competence[edit]

In the SDT competence also has an important role as a fundamental psychological need.[2][16] Yet children and clients referred to secure residential care or prison often have a fragmented life history, with many adverse childhood experiences and social and educational failures.[21] As a consequence, their behavior is often ‘pain based’[22] which elicits many negative transactional processes with caregivers, teachers and authority figures. They often experience less feelings of competence, which can result in an external locus of control and sometimes learned helplessness.[23] This severely hampers feelings of competence and possibilities for development. Behavioral management in facilities often stimulates learned helplessness and diminishes perceived growth by repression.[8] According to SDT competence is something which cannot be forced, but has to be fostered (‘grass does not grow by pulling at it’). By fostering learning, intrinsic motivation (as opposed to a-motivation and learned helplessness) will fuel more perceptions of development and improve behavior.

Relatedness[edit]

Contact with others (this is called ‘relatedness’ in the terminology of the self determination theory) is one of the most important features of our social brain.[24] Therefore a lack of contact often results in mental disorders and impaired executive functioning.[25][26] Contact is also necessary for behavioral influence, as the positive discipline saying goes “connection before correction”. There is ample evidence in literature that the ‘working alliance’[27] is an important feature of secure residential-, forensic- and psychiatric care.[28] Petra Schaftenaar showed relatedness in psychiatric care to decrease recidivism as Parhar[29] did the same for youth. Yet today in many residential facilities withholding contact or even separation is used as a way of punishment for improper behavior[30][31] which often results in frustration of basic psychological needs and more violence, even leading up to more separation. In order to produce long-term treatment motivation, in accordance with the self determination theory, group staff should support adolescents in their relationships.[27] After all, a a better group climate in secure residential, psychiatric, and forensic youth care is characterized by support.[32]

Atmosphere[edit]

In residential care, atmosphere is a special characteristic (also related to autonomy and competence) because it stresses the need to maintain a balance between flexibility, needed from staff to let children and clients experiment with new behavior, and the need for control to avert chaos and anarchy.[23] This balance is attained trough structure and safety. Structure is needed to create a predictable social environment with meaningful daily routines (also enhancing competence) and a number of rules (not too much interfering with autonomy) to stimulate pro-social behavior among children and clients, together with respectful mutual contact will provide for safety.

Staff members play an important role in maintaining order, as it is often a characteristic of children and clients to have executive problems and lack meta-cognitive skills (e.g. psychiatric problems or a Mild Intellectual Disability). This means they need to be told in advance what is expected from them and they often need help with their behavior; when this fails consequences are sometimes necessary to help them further (limited setting instead of punishment).[3]

Measuring (living) group climate[edit]

In the past 30 years many scholars have attempted to identify climate aspects and subsequently develop validated instruments, often with many items. In the past, most of these instruments turned out to be of meagre validity and reliability, but also containing many lengthy items consisting of difficult words requiring meta-cognitive skills which most children and clients, due to their limited executive functioning, could not understand properly. Besides that, crucial elements of living group climate remained unclear.

In the last ten years three systematic review studies have been published, of which two mainly pertain to the prison environment but are closely related to SDT.[33][34] Tonkin[33] describes the following factors in his review: relatedness, growth, structure, system, safety, autonomy and quality of life. Furthermore, Boone et al.[35] describe six factors: contact with staff, autonomy, contact with the outside world, safety, meaningful daily activities, and physical health. They also describe the physical surroundings, professionality of staff, and characteristics of staff and inmates.

The study of Van der Helm[23] also looks at more open settings and homes, this was derived from earlier studies[36] and describes contact with staff, perceptions of growth, repression (opposite of autonomy) and atmosphere (structure and activities, rules and safety and mutual contact between children and clients). A recent scoping review by Van der Helm et al. (in Dutch)[9] also addresses shelters and housing.

Up till now the most frequent used (and published) instruments internationally appear to be the Essen CES[37] which is mainly used in psychiatry, and the Group Climate Instrument (originally adapted from the Prison Group Climate Instrument)[23], which has a wider application.

The Essen CES measures ‘Therapeutic Hold’, referring to the extent to which the unit is perceived as supportive of patients’ therapeutic needs (very much like relatedness); ‘Experienced Safety’, representing freedom from the threat of aggression and violence; and ‘Patient Cohesion and Mutual Support’. The Essen CES is validated in German, English and Dutch.[38]

The GCI measures responsivity from staff (very much like Therapeutic Hold), Growth (Competence), Repression (the opposite of autonomy) and atmosphere (in the GCI this incorporates structure, safety and mutual relations between children and clients, much like ‘Patient Cohesion and Mutual Support’).

The GCI is used for open (residential youth care, adult shelters and homes) and secure settings (secure youth care, Prison and Psychiatry). Also the questionnaire is used for family style children’s homes and has a special validated questionnaire for children aged 4-8 and 8-14[39] as well as an observation list for children and patients unable to read or write or with very limited cognitive ability, a validated questionnaire for MID.[40]

The PGCI (Prison Group Climate Inventory) is validated in Dutch,[23] German,[41] English, Estonian, Russian, Papiaments, Swahili, Xhosa, Hindi & Tamil. Translations and validations are currently being written in Turkish, Spanish and a number of Slavic languages with good initial results due to the simple wording and limited items.

Improving (living) group climate in practice[edit]

Improving living group climate in practice is often best accomplished by a Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle (PDCA)[42]. First everybody is informed about the scheme and a first measurement is performed with all children or clients in order to assess a base-line (in case of the CGI this baseline is compared to a specific reference group). Then the results are discussed with staff, and they will discuss these results with the children/clients. Together SMART plans for improvement are formulated. Letting the children and clients be a part of something they can influence themselves gives them a voice. Lastly follow-up measurements will assess whether the formulated SMART plans have worked and what is needed to further improve climate.

Learning climate in special education[edit]

Children who live in foster care, youth care facilities or stay in prison, also attend special education classes and often experience cognitive, social emotional and behavioral problems.[43] Therefore creating a healthy and positive learning environment is a challenging task for special education teachers.[44][45] The method of improving living group climate in practice also proved to be evidence based in special education, where climate is also very important for cognitive- and social-emotional learning and personality development. Anderson et al.[46] and Wissink et al.[47] in: Beld[48] for example, found that learning climate is a crucial factor impacting children’s motivation and behavior.

Learning climate can be defined as:

The perceived quality of students’ proximal social learning environment which facilitates motivation for learning, supports cognitive and social development of students and academic achievement and encompasses teacher support, structure, a positive group atmosphere among students and safety.[48]

A validated self-report questionnaire, the Special Education Classroom Climate Inventory (SECCI), was designed and proved to be a reliable instrument to assess classroom climate in schools.[48] To improve classroom climate, the PDCA cycle as described above is also employed in schools to support school teams in developing a positive learning climate.

Work climate of staff[edit]

Research has shown that staff is a key factor in providing and maintaining a positive living group climate; staff has to do the work (‘people make the place’).[49] It can be a difficult task to work in a high risk work environment. The work-climate must be good in order to enable staff to keep the above-mentioned balance between flexibility and control. Measurement and improvement of the work climate can help improve the living group climate.

Applications for different settings[edit]

Regular monitoring of the living group climate (and work climate) helps staff to improve professional behavior, but also make children/clients aware of their own responsibility towards a good climate, from which all involved profit. In different settings the climate approach has proven to be very fruitful, for example:

  • The Ward Climate in psychiatric hospitals (Essen CES and CGI) provides clients with a voice since the seminal work of Trieschmann in 1962.
  • The Prison Climate has seen a proliferation of instruments (Tonkins, 2015[HPvd1] )33, but increased attention to climate aspects combined with recidivism reduction is an important innovation in this sector. Youth prisons in European countries such as Germany, Belgium and Estonia, with a primary focus on development, education and reintegration, are pioneers.
  • Family-style care climate: in the Netherlands, more than 300 family-style care homes regularly monitor their home-climate as an important Regular Outcome Measure, together with the work climate.
  • Monitoring and improving Residential (youthcare) Climate is regularly done in the Netherlands and Belgium, but results in Estonia have also been very impressive.
  • Shelter Climate and Housing Climate is recently developing in the Netherlands with good results ( www.hsleiden.nl/residentiele-jeugdzorg (dutch).

References[edit]

  1. ↑ Trieschman, A; Whittaker, J; Brendtro, 1969 (1969). The other 23 hours: Child care work with emotional disturbed children in a therapeutic milieu. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Search this book on
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Ryan, R; Deci, E (2017). Self determination theory. Basic psychological needs in motivation, development and wellness. New York: Guilford Press. Search this book on
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Stams, G.J.; Van der Helm, G. (2017). "What works in residential programs for aggressive and violent youth? Treating youth at risk for aggressive and violent behavior in (secure) residential care". The Wiley Handbook of Violence and Agression.
  4. ↑ MacDonald, G.; Leary, M. (2005). "Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain". Psychological Bulletin. 131 (2): 202–223. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.2.202. PMID 15740417.
  5. ↑ Anglin, J. (2014). Pain, normality, and the struggle for congruence: reinterpreting residential care for children and youth. Oxford: Routlegde. Search this book on
  6. ↑ Sameroff, A. (2009). The transactional model of development: How children and contexts shape each other. Washington: American Psychological Association. pp. 203–220. Search this book on
  7. ↑ Gunnar, M. (1989). Systems and development: the Minnesota symposia on child psychology. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. pp. 167–209. Search this book on
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 De Valk, S.; Kuiper, C; Van der Helm, G.; Maas, A.; Stams, G. J. (2016). "Repression in Residential Youth Care: A Scoping Review". Adolescent Research Review. 1 (3): 195–216. doi:10.1007/s40894-016-0029-9.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Van der Helm, G.; Kuiper, C; Stams, G. J. (2018). "Group climate and treatment motivation in secure residential and forensic youth care from the perspective of self determination theory". Children and Youth Services Review. 93: 339–344. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.07.028.
  10. ↑ Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Anchor Books. Search this book on
  11. ↑ Trieschman, A.; Whittaker, J. (1961). The other 23 hours. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. Search this book on
  12. ↑ Kok, J. (2011). Opvoeden als beroep. Professioneel werken in zorg en onderwijs. Amsterdam: Boom Uitgevers. Search this book on
  13. ↑ Weisz, John R.; Kuppens, Sofie; Eckshtain, Dikla; Ugueto, Ana M.; Hawley, Kristin M.; Jensen-Doss, Amanda (2013-07-01). "Performance of Evidence-Based Youth Psychotherapies Compared With Usual Clinical Care". JAMA Psychiatry. 70 (7): 750–61. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.1176. ISSN 2168-622X. PMC 3848075. PMID 23754332.
  14. ↑ Weisz, John R.; Kuppens, Sofie; Ng, Mei Yi; Eckshtain, Dikla; Ugueto, Ana M.; Vaughn-Coaxum, Rachel; Jensen-Doss, Amanda; Hawley, Kristin M.; Krumholz Marchette, Lauren S. (February 2017). "What five decades of research tells us about the effects of youth psychological therapy: A multilevel meta-analysis and implications for science and practice". American Psychologist. 72 (2): 79–117. doi:10.1037/a0040360. ISSN 1935-990X. PMID 28221063.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Oei, K.; Groenhuizen, M. (2012). Progression in Forensic Psychiatry: about Boundaries. Amsterdam: Wolters Kluwer Nederland B.V. Search this book on
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 Vansteenkiste, M.; Soenens, B. (2015). Vitamines voor groei (vitamins for growth). Den Haag: Acco Uitgeverij. Search this book on
  17. ↑ Biesta, G. (2012). "Philosophy of Education for the Public Good: Five challenges and an agenda". Educational Philosophy and Theory. 44 (6): 581–593. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2011.00783.x.
  18. ↑ Van der Helm, G.; Boekee, I.; Stams, G. J.; Van der Laan, P. (2011). "Fear is the key: keeping the balance between flexibility and control in a Dutch youth prison" (PDF). Journal of Children's Services. 6 (4): 248–263. doi:10.1108/17466661111190947.
  19. ↑ Van der Helm, G.; Klapwijk, G.; Stams, G. J.; Van der Laan, P. (2009). "'What Works' for juvenile prisoners: the role of Group climate in a youth prison". Journal of Children's Services. 4.
  20. ↑ Brummelaar, Mijntje Derkje Corneeltje ten (2016). Space between the borders?: The participation of young people in decision-making during their stay in secure residential care (Thesis). University of Groningen.
  21. ↑ Wolff, Kevin T.; Baglivio, Michael T. (2016-01-29). "Adverse Childhood Experiences, Negative Emotionality, and Pathways to Juvenile Recidivism". Crime & Delinquency. 63 (12): 1495–1521. doi:10.1177/0011128715627469. ISSN 0011-1287.
  22. ↑ Anglin, J. (2004). "Creating "Well-Functioning" Residential Care and Defining It's Place in a System of Care". Child and Youth Care Forum. 33 (3): 175–192. doi:10.1023/B:CCAR.0000029689.70611.0f.
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 Van der Helm, G. (2011). First do no Harm: Living group climate in secure juvenile correctional institutions. Amsterdam: SWP Publishing. Search this book on
  24. ↑ Boehm, C. (2014). Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue, Altruism, and Shame. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0465020485. Search this book on
  25. ↑ Arden, J.; Linford, L. (2008). Brain‐Based Therapy with Children and Adolescents: Evidence‐Based Treatment for Everyday Practice. New York: Wiley. ISBN 978-0470138915. Search this book on
  26. ↑ Raine, A. (2013). The anatomy of violence: The biological roots of crime. New York: Pantheon/Random House. ISBN 978-0307475619. Search this book on
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 Roest, Jesse; van der Helm, Peer; Strijbosch, Eefje; van Brandenburg, Mariëtte; Stams, Geert Jan (July 2014). "Measuring Therapeutic Alliance With Children in Residential Treatment and Therapeutic Day Care". Research on Social Work Practice. 26 (2): 212–218. doi:10.1177/1049731514540478. ISSN 1049-7315.
  28. ↑ Schaftenaar, P.; Van Outheusden, I.; Stams, G. J.; Baart, A. (2018). "Relational caring and contact after treatment. An evolution study on criminal recidivism". International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 60: 45–50. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.07.011. PMID 30217330.
  29. ↑ Parhar, Karen K.; Wormith, J. Stephen; Derkzen, Dena M.; Beauregard, Adele M. (September 2008). "Offender Coercion in Treatment". Criminal Justice and Behavior. 35 (9): 1109–1135. doi:10.1177/0093854808320169. ISSN 0093-8548.
  30. ↑ de Valk, S.; van der Helm, G. H. P.; Beld, M.; Schaftenaar, P.; Kuiper, C.; Stams, G. J. J. M. (2015-03-16). "Does punishment in secure residential youth care work? An overview of the evidence". Journal of Children's Services. 10 (1): 3–16. doi:10.1108/jcs-11-2014-0048. ISSN 1746-6660.
  31. ↑ Ros, Nienke; Van der Helm, Peer; Wissink, Inge; Stams, Geert-Jan; Schaftenaar, Petra (December 2013). "Institutional climate and aggression in a secure psychiatric setting". Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology. 24 (6): 713–727. doi:10.1080/14789949.2013.848460. ISSN 1478-9949.
  32. ↑ Souverein, F.A.; Van der Helm, G.H.P.; Stams, G.J.J.M. (December 2013). "'Nothing works' in secure residential youth care?". Children and Youth Services Review. 35 (12): 1941–1945. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.09.010. ISSN 0190-7409.
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 Tonkin, - (2015). "Onbekend". Onbekend.
  34. ↑ Boone, M. (2016). "Het leefklimaat in justitie ̈le inrichtingen (The living environment in correctional institutions)" (PDF). WODC (Research and Documentation Centre).
  35. ↑ Boone, - (2015). "Onbekend". Onbekend.
  36. ↑ Moos, R. (1974). Evaluating treatment environments: A social ecological approach. New York: Wiley. ISBN 978-0471615033. Search this book on
  37. ↑ Schalast, Norbert; Redies, Mirja; Collins, Mick; Stacey, Jacqueline; Howells, Kevin (2008). "EssenCES, a short questionnaire for assessing the social climate of forensic psychiatric wards". Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health. 18 (1): 49–58. doi:10.1002/cbm.677. ISSN 0957-9664. PMID 18229876.
  38. ↑ de Vries, Meike Godelieve; Brazil, Inti Angelo; Tonkin, Matthew; Bulten, Berend Hendrik (June 2016). "Ward Climate Within a High Secure Forensic Psychiatric Hospital: Perceptions of Patients and Nursing Staff and the Role of Patient Characteristics". Archives of Psychiatric Nursing. 30 (3): 342–349. doi:10.1016/j.apnu.2015.12.007. hdl:2381/39501. ISSN 0883-9417. PMID 27256939.
  39. ↑ Strijbosch, E. (2018). "Exploring ways to build a positive group climate in residential care for 4-15 year old children". In Progress.
  40. ↑ Neijmeier, - (2018). "Onbekend". Onbekend.
  41. ↑ Heynen, Evelyn J. E.; Van der Helm, Peer; Stams, Geert Jan J. M. (2016-12-20). "Treatment Motivation and Living Group Climate in German Youth Prison: A Validation of the German Adolescent Treatment Motivation Questionnaire". Residential Treatment for Children & Youth. 34 (1): 49–60. doi:10.1080/0886571x.2016.1251373. ISSN 0886-571X.
  42. ↑ Levrouw, Delphine; Roose, Rudi; van der Helm, Peer; Strijbosch, Eefje; Vandevelde, Stijn (2018-05-04). "Developing a positive living group climate in residential youth care: A single case study". Child & Family Social Work. 23 (4): 709–716. doi:10.1111/cfs.12467. ISSN 1356-7500.
  43. ↑ Beld, M. H. M.; van der Voort, D.; van der Helm, G. H. P.; Kuiper, C. H. Z.; de Swart, J. J. W.; Stams, G. J. J. M. (2017-05-05). "Assessing Classroom Climate in Special Education: A Validation Study of the Special Education Classroom Climate Inventory". Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 36 (7): 736–749. doi:10.1177/0734282917706618. ISSN 0734-2829.
  44. ↑ Colins, Olivier; Vermeiren, Robert; Vreugdenhil, Coby; van den Brink, Wim; Doreleijers, Theo; Broekaert, Erik (April 2010). "Psychiatric Disorders in Detained Male Adolescents: A Systematic Literature Review". The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 55 (4): 255–263. doi:10.1177/070674371005500409. ISSN 0706-7437. PMID 20416149.
  45. ↑ Van Dam, C.; Nijhof, K.; Scholte, R.; Veerman, J. (2010). ). Evaluatie nieuw zorgaanbod gesloten jeugdzorg voor jongeren met ernstige gedragsproblemen. Nijmegen: Prakticon B.V. Search this book on
  46. ↑ Anderson, A.; Hamilton, R.; Hattie, J. (2004). "Classroom climate and motivated behavior in secondary schools". Learning Environments Research. 7 (3): 211–225. doi:10.1007/s10984-004-3292-9.
  47. ↑ Wissink, Inge B.; Deković, Maja; Stams, Geert-Jan; Asscher, Jessica J.; Rutten, Esther; Zijlstra, Bonne J. H. (2013-07-19). "Moral Orientation and Relationships in School and Adolescent Pro- and Antisocial Behaviors". The Journal of School Nursing. 30 (3): 216–225. doi:10.1177/1059840513497402. ISSN 1059-8405. PMID 23873393.
  48. ↑ 48.0 48.1 48.2 Beld, M. H. M.; van der Voort, D.; van der Helm, G. H. P.; Kuiper, C. H. Z.; de Swart, J. J. W.; Stams, G. J. J. M. (2017-05-05). "Assessing Classroom Climate in Special Education: A Validation Study of the Special Education Classroom Climate Inventory". Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 36 (7): 736–749. doi:10.1177/0734282917706618. ISSN 0734-2829.
  49. ↑ SCHNEIDER, BENJAMIN (September 1987). "THE PEOPLE MAKE THE PLACE". Personnel Psychology. 40 (3): 437–453. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x. ISSN 0031-5826.


This article "Residential group climate" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:Residential group climate. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.


Retrieved from "https://en.everybodywiki.com/index.php?title=Residential_group_climate&oldid=950924"
License CC BY-SA 3.0
Powered by MediaWiki
Powered by Semantic MediaWiki