Starting question

“Are the constructs, thresholds and intervention mechanisms defensible?”

Challenge the framework at the level your expertise can test.

Start with D1 and D3, then select a bounded review or a study from the open research agenda.

• In 30 minutes: Review one subscale, the banding model or the persona-recognition question.

• In one week: Write a focused methods, construct or usability review.

• In one month: Propose cognitive interviews, reliability analysis, EFA/CFA, clustering or a longitudinal study.

Keep in mind: The project does not claim validated thresholds. Negative results receive the same prominence as positive findings.

What the project can claim today

• The constructs are explicitly mapped to COM-B.

• Item and intervention rationales are traceable to DASP and related behavioral mechanisms.

• The scoring rules, thresholds, borderline cases and known limitations are transparent.

• The framework is designed for practical, non-evaluative use and community scrutiny.

What remains to be tested

• Internal reliability of CAP, OPP and MOT scales

• Whether the proposed three-factor structure holds

• Whether the six patterns emerge empirically

• Sensitivity and specificity of D3 thresholds

• Predictive and intervention validity

• Cross-role, sector, language and cultural invariance

Start with a question that can falsify or refine the model.

Candidate designs include cognitive interviews, cross-sectional reliability and EFA, independent CFA, persona-recognition studies, mixed-method pilot case studies, OPP intervention comparisons, longitudinal reassessment and translation/invariance work.

Research principles

• Purpose-specific written consent

• Separate consent for team, research and publication use

• No groups below five in reporting

• Low Opportunity reported as an organizational finding

• Preregistration and open code encouraged

• Null and negative results treated as first-class outputs

Theoretical and empirical anchors

COM-B

Michie, van Stralen and West (2011). The Behaviour Change Wheel: a method for characterising and designing behavior-change interventions.

DASP

Larios-Vargas et al. (2023). A framework for driving the adoption of software security practices, based on 33 behavioral drivers reported by 28 practitioners.

Additional mechanisms

Self-Determination Theory, psychological reactance, internalization, prospect theory and metacognitive limits are used where the intervention guidance explicitly names them.

A claim is only as strong as the current evidence.

Do not describe SECUR-E as scientifically validated, diagnostic, predictive of vulnerability rates or proven to produce behavior change. Appropriate current language is: open, evidence-informed and under staged validation.