ArticleHeliyon2023
A systematic literature review of cybersecurity scales assessing information security awareness.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. 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, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Information Security Awareness (ISA) is a significant concept that got considerable attention recently and can assist in minimizing the risks associated with information security breaches. Several measurement scales have been developed in this regard, as measuring users' ISA is paramount. Although ISA specific scales are very important, yet what methodological rigor they use in terms of initial conceptualization of ISA, data collection and analysis during the development, and scale validation of such scales are some unknown aspects. Therefore, we provide a comprehensive review of the existing ISA specific scales to address all the above concerns. A popular method, PRISMA, is utilized, and a total of 24 articles that match with criteria of this research are included for the final in-depth analysis. Also, a holistic evaluation framework is developed containing three phases and 19 criteria. Findings revealed that most studies treat ISA as a multi-dimensional construct, and ISA researchers rarely conduct both pilot testing and pre-text evaluation while validating and refining the initial scales. Additionally, several articles did not report some of the essential elements used for checking the rigor of factor analysis, and evidence for validities of the identified scales is inadequate. Consequently, existing ISA specific scales must be improved both in terms of the methodological thoroughness of the scale development procedure and their validities. Moreover, not only justifying why the development of a new scale is necessary, but also improving the quality of the existing scales by doing multiple iterations is significant in the future. Likewise, the inclusion of all the dimensions of ISA, while generating the initial items pool is an important aspect to be considered. A thorough discussion, recommendations for future research, conclusions, and study limitations are provided.
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.