169 General discussion Based on these conceptual insights, we developed a new MCS-Questionnaire (MCSQ) to measure the MCS of professionals. The MCSQ needed to cover a broader range of elements than we had found in related measurement tools. We used some items from existing questionnaires as inspiration on, e.g., moral competencies (e.g., see Oprins et al., 2011). Our, as yet non-validated version of the, MSCQ was developed based on the specific prison context and contains 70 items in 8 domains. Besides measuring the MCS of professionals at one particular moment, the MCSQ can also measure changes in MCS by repeated measurements over a period of time (see Ch.5). To date, literature on the ethics of prison staff focuses primarily on ethical codes of conduct, breaches of integrity, and integrity tests (e.g., Murdoch & Vaclav, 2016; Tatman, 2022; Van Hein et al., 2007). We did not focus on misbehaviors or abstract notions of the ethics of prison work. Instead, we concentrated on the moral elements of prison staff’s actual – and ever-changing – work practice. We wished to focus on fostering moral reflections and attitudes that lead to ‘good work practices’; with a positive notion of the related concepts for prison work. For example, by talking about ‘including different perspectives’ in decision-making instead of being ignorant to others. Impact of MCD on moral craftsmanship In Chapter 5 the MCSQ was used to measure the impact of a series of MCD sessions on the MCS of prison staff, compared to their own MCS before starting the series of MCD, and compared to MCS scores of teams who did not participate in MCD. Our analyses showed a positive impact on several elements of the MCS in the intervention groups; hence, after participating in the MCD series. For example, the MCD series significantly and positively influenced – compared to the control groups and to the premeasurements – the items where staff indicate having received tools to deal with morally challenging situations and finding it easier to deal with them. Moreover, prison staff of the intervention location scored significantly higher after the MCD series on items about asking questions about the why of actions of colleagues or supervisors. However, at the same time, various items in the MCSQ showed little or no statistically significant differences after the MCD series. This raises the question whether this indicates that there is simply no significant impact or that the way the measurement was performed contributed to this partial lack of significant changes. Based on the explorative study with a non-validated questionnaire, we are not sure whether we grasped important changes via our items. Another explanation could be that organizational challenges sometimes negatively influenced MCD experiences of prison staff (e.g., the closing of 7