Thesis

148 Chapter 6 Quantitative outcomes per professional discipline We analyzed all quantitative items, differentiated per professional discipline (see Appendix 1). The data per single MCD shows a statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) trend, in which the following disciplines score differently than the averages as seen before in Table 1 on all items: (1) the lowest scoring disciplines, although still with positive scores, are security guards (SG) and case-managers of the reintegration services (CR), and (2), the disciplines with the most positive scores are correctional officers (CO), health care professionals (HP), middle management (MM), and management teams (MT). Additionally, Table 2 shows average scores per professional discipline for the item How do you rate this conversations’ outcomes (results or insights) for the work practice? This is the only item that generated additional data from facilitators. MCD facilitators score the impact on practice differently than participants, with a lower score by MCD facilitators for security guards (SG) and higher scores for managerial positions (MM, MT). The data on the impact on practice (Figure 1) show that most scores are in the answer category ‘neutral’; hence, we do not see many differences based on professional disciplines. Table 2. Averages scores on one item, single MCD sessions, per professional discipline Professional discipline As experienced by MCD participants means / P-value As viewed by MCD facilitators means / P-value CR 6.6 / .0001 7.0 / .0001 SG 6.8 / .583 5.7 / .004 BR 7.3 / .076 7.3 / .527 LI 7.4 / .057 7.5 / .225 OR 7.5 / .028 7.1 / .718 CO 7.6 / .005 7.4 / .316 HP 7.7 / .003 7.7 / .053 MT 7.7 / .002 8.0 / .004 MM 7.7 / .002 8.2 / .002 1 During the multilevel analysis, the discipline of case-managers reintegration services was chosen as the reference group because this group had the highest number of participants.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw