101 Defining and measuring moral craftsmanship process, items were excluded or adapted based on the grounds of a) overlap in content, b) explanation of potentially ambiguous items, c) insufficiently clear formulations, d) overly academic formulations, e) high probability of provoking socially desired responses, and finally f) selection of the most relevant items. Initially, the MCSQ contained many items about ‘my colleagues’ and how they would act. Then, however, we decided to shift the main focus to one’s own experience or one’s own team. In the final stage, we deliberately changed the formulation of some items from positive to negative, to avoid ‘yea-sayers’ and acquiescence bias (Couch & Keniston, 1960). The final MCSQ contains eight domains. Initially, domain-names were directly related to the levels and elements of our mind map (Figure 1). However, in the final version (Table 1), domains were reshuffled and named using more common words. By avoiding academic or ethical jargon, we lowered the participation threshold for respondents and help them understand the focus of the items. To provide insight into how our mind map of conceptual MCS elements is related to the domains of the MCSQ, and to show how we developed the content of the questionnaire, we will follow the levels of conceptual elements of MCS (Figure 1). Table 1. Domains of items of MCSQ 1.0 1. General presence of reflexivity 2. Values and norms 3. Judgment and reasoning 4. Consultation 5. Taking action 6. Looking back 7. Interactions 8. Leadership 4