Skip to main content

Development and validation of The CyberAbility Scale: a screening tool of cyberscam risk for people with and without acquired brain injury

Jao-Yue Carminati ; Joshua F. Wiley ; Jennie L. Ponsford ; Kate Rachel Gould (2025) — Disability and Rehabilitation

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
Unavailable
Average per calendar year
Citation count unavailable

Counts reflect Google Scholar’s coverage and do not measure research quality. Source, calculation and limitations

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2025.2520994 (opens in a new tab)

Country:   Global
Tags:   Acquired Brain Injury, Cyberscam Vulnerability, Online Safety, Romance Scams, Scale Validation, Scam Identification, Scam Screening, Social Isolation
What do these research terms mean?
Preprint
A manuscript shared before formal peer review and publication. Check whether a later published version is available.
Dataset
A collection of data or examples for others to inspect or reuse. It can appear in Library search and topic mapping, but RSRC does not use dataset records as evidence in Research Insights.
Dissertation or thesis
Research submitted for an academic degree. This describes its format, not its reliability.
Journal article
An article published in a journal. This label alone does not establish peer review, study quality, or how well the findings apply elsewhere.
Qualitative research
Examines experiences, meanings, or processes, often through interviews or observations. It can explain how something happens without estimating how common it is.
Quantitative research
Uses numerical measurements to describe patterns or test relationships. A relationship between two measurements does not by itself show that one causes the other.
Systematic review
Uses a planned, documented method to find and assess research addressing a question. Its conclusions still depend on the included studies and what the search covered.
Meta-analysis
Statistically combines results from multiple studies. Combining studies does not remove weaknesses in their design or make unlike populations interchangeable.
Not classified
This record has no recognized label in this filter. It does not mean the publication used no method, or that no research exists.

Definitions draw on DataCite resource types; Cochrane review methods; NLM: association and causation. RSRC’s dataset and classification rules are explained in our methodology.

Citation tools
Download RIS Download BibTeX 


              
              

            

          

        


      

      

    

        
Transparency

        
Evidence and review status

        
This page contains AI-generated content. No human content review or subject-matter-expert review is recorded.

    


    

                    

                
Source basis

                

                    Downloaded PDF
                

            

                    

                
Source updates

                

                    No notice found at last check
                

            

                    

                
AI-generated page content

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Automated checks

                

                    Passed
                

            

                    

                
Administrative approval

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Human content review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

                    

                
Subject-matter-expert review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

            


    

        
            How this was prepared
        
        

                            

                    
Source basis

                    

                    
RSRC downloaded and privately stored a copy of the paper for internal analysis. The PDF is not offered to viewers from this page.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    PDF added to RSRC:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Source updates

                    

                    
No incoming update notice was found in the dated Crossref response. Coverage is incomplete, particularly for corrections and expressions of concern; this is not a guarantee that the source is valid or unchanged.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Last source-status attempt:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
AI-generated page content

                    

                    
AI-generated research notes displayed on this page: Synopsis, Identified gaps, Methods, Limitations, Future work. The paper itself is not described as AI-generated.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Document analysis recorded:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Synopsis generation recorded:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Page record updated:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Automated checks

                    

                    
The current, source-bound synopsis passed the recorded versioned publication checks.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Checks completed:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                            

                            
                                View passed checks (3)
                            
                            
    
                                                                    
  • Length, completeness, repetition, refusal, boilerplate, and active-markup screening
    • 
                                                                    
  • Numerical claims checked against the available source text
    • 
                                                                    
  • English-source lexical grounding check
    • 
                                                            

                        

                                        

                

                            

                    
Administrative approval

                    

                    
An authenticated administrator approved the bibliographic record for public Library display. This is not a review of every research claim.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Approved for public display:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Human content review

                    

                    
No human review is recorded for the AI-generated content displayed on this page.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Subject-matter-expert review

                    

                    
RSRC has not recorded review of this content by a subject-matter or methods expert.


                    
                                        

                

                    

    


    

        Review-state definitions

        Found a possible error?
        Request a correction.
    



    



              

        
                  

            
Synopsis

            
The CyberAbility Scale was developed to screen cyberscam risk for adults with and without acquired brain injury (ABI). The study describes the purpose as filling a gap in existing measures by creating a tool that captures a range of psychosocial, cognitive, and behavioral factors linked to online vulnerability, including experiences, knowledge, social support, and online engagement. The measure originated from a combination of prior scales and domain-informed items, then underwent qualitative refinement and quantitative validation with ABI and non-ABI groups. In the final validation, 24 items were retained and arranged into a four-factor structure: Past Scam Experience, Scam Knowledge, Trusted Supports, and Seeking Connection Online, alongside the ability to identify scams. The sample included participants with ABI (n = 149) and without ABI (n = 153). The authors report evidence of appropriate model fit, internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and concurrent and construct validity for the scale. They conclude that The CyberAbility Scale is a brief, valid screening tool for online vulnerability and can be used by people with ABI, clinicians, and researchers to identify areas of cyberscam risk and to guide safety interventions. The article also discusses implications for rehabilitation, noting the scale’s potential utility in screening, informing supports, and monitoring cybersafety education, while recognizing the need for ongoing assessment in both ABI and general populations.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Comprehensive, valid measures of cyberscam risk are lacking, particularly for people with acquired brain injury (ABI). Existing measures emphasize financial decision-making or telephone scams and do not capture the broader psychosocial, cognitive, and behavioral factors relevant to online scams. The suitability of the CyberAbility Scale for populations beyond ABI and English-speaking Australian and New Zealand participants remains unestablished.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
This Australian/New Zealand psychometric validation study recruited 149 adults with ABI and 153 adults without ABI. Participants completed a preliminary CyberAbility Scale, scam-experience and technology-use questions, and the Susceptibility to Scams Scale; most repeated the CyberAbility Scale about two weeks later. Researchers used item analyses, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory and multiple-group confirmatory factor analyses, reliability testing, concurrent and construct validity analyses, and ROC analysis to refine the instrument.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The sample was relatively highly educated and technologically active, and online recruitment may have excluded people needing face-to-face assistance or with greater cognitive, communication, or technology-literacy support needs. Self-reported prior scam experience may be affected by limited awareness and reduces complex, variable scam experiences to a binary measure. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted in the same sample. Findings may not generalize beyond English-fluent participants in Australia and New Zealand.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Future studies should confirm the factor structure in an independent ABI sample and validate the scale in other disability, cultural, and linguistic groups. The authors are conducting research on associations between scale scores and demographic, injury, technology-use, psychosocial, and cognitive factors, as well as a one-year longitudinal study of predictive validity. Further work should refine culturally and linguistically appropriate versions.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

            See how this publication connects to RSRC's living evidence syntheses through current citations and research-topic mapping.