Thesis

77 Evaluation of MCD sessions Influence of the number of MCD sessions on evaluations To determine whether evaluation scores change over time, we categorized the singleMCD-evaluation forms into 3 groups: A) 1-3 sessions (n=43 sessions), B) 4-6 sessions (n=42), and C) 7-10 sessions per team (n=37). Overall, almost no significant differences are seen. Hence, most evaluation scores stayed stable during the series. Especially the first (group A) and last sessions (group C) often match in scores. The seen differences were small and mostly non-significant. The middle sessions (group B) were least wellevaluated for a few items, although often still positively evaluated. Significant differences are primarily seen in 2 items. In the first item, ‘Participants tried to understand each other’, we notice similar scores (4.3/5) by participants during the series, while facilitators show a significant decrease, starting at 3.9, then 3.5 and ending with 3.6 out of 5 (p < .01 for part B and p < .05 for C). The second item, in Figure 5, ‘Participants asked each other open-ended questions’, shows high scores among participants and facilitators in group A, and then facilitators score low in Group B, with significant differences relative to groups A and C (both showing p < .01). Figure 5. Progression of evaluations, dialogical skills, rounded averages on a 5-point scale Overall, the quantitative data on items about dialogical skills shows no increase during the series. More so, facilitators perceived the dialogical skills as lower during later sessions (groups B and C). Yet, within qualitative data, across multiple teams, facilitators indicated that participants’ dialogic skills (such as listening and asking each other questions) improved during the series. After one of the last MCD sessions, a facilitator wrote: ‘In the beginning, there was a tendency to provide advice and opinions quickly. Eventually, this was replaced by sincere questions and genuine interest.’ Solely in this analysis of dialogical skills, differences are present when comparing quantitative and qualitative outcomes. 3

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw