ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Climate counts: a multilevel validation of the EssenCES in Romanian correctional settings.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The social climate in prisons is associated with better mental health and increased participation in activities. Method: In a validation study, we examined the predictive validity of the EssenCES for the Romanian prison system. The sample included 566 inmates and patients as well as 175 staff members, 741 in total. Results: The Romanian version of EssenCES with the three scales Patients'/Inmates' Cohesion and Mutual Support, Experienced Safety and Therapeutic Hold showed good psychometric properties for prisons and forensic hospitals. Inmates and staff rated the prison climate slightly differently, with staff having a more positive view of therapeutic support than inmates, and inmates having a more positive view of the security on the ward. Staff in semi-open and maximum security regimes reported higher Patient Cohesion scores than inmates in regular prisons, while staff in forensic hospitals reported lower Patient Cohesion scores than inmates in the same settings. Discussion: Taken together, the findings demonstrate the utility of multilevel and multivariate approaches in clarifying how regime and role shape prison climate, informing practice across forensic and correctional settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.