# Establishing a Model for the User Acceptance of Cybersecurity Training
## 3 Literature Assessment Methodology  
This research is conducted as a structured literature review following the methodology proposed by [5]. As suggested by [6; 7], an inclusive approach was adopted in selecting databases and developing the search queries. The literature review aimed to examine factors influencing users' acceptance of cybersecurity training and to identify relevant publications. To achieve this, the following query was developed: (((cyber OR information OR computer OR it) AND security)) AND (training OR education OR awareness) AND (adoption OR acceptance OR usage) AND [FACTOR]. The intention was to capture all permutations of cybersecurity training combined with the adoption of words with similar meanings. Finally, terms for each factor in the CTAM were appended. The search string was applied to the following databases and indexes: Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library, with minor modifications to the logic to meet the requirements of the respective databases. These databases and indexes provide comprehensive coverage within the fields of technology and computer science. It is also worth noting that Scopus and WoS are general indexing databases that provide a broad overview of peer-reviewed literature across various disciplines, including their extensive inclusion criteria and wide-ranging scope. This ensures a diverse and multidisciplinary perspective on the research findings. On the other hand, IEEE Xplore and ACM Digital Library are publisher-specific repositories, which allow for more in-depth access to the latest advancements. While these databases are expected to yield different results due to their indexing criteria, there is a possibility of overlap. For instance, a paper published by ACM could potentially be retrieved from the ACM Digital Library, WoS, and Scopus, illustrating the varying coverage of these scholarly resources. Additional complementary searches with the same terms applied to the databases and indexes were also conducted on Google Scholar. The search approach resulted in 125 searches conducted on the listed databases and indexes. The papers resulting from the searches were screened for inclusion in a five-step process as follows:  
1. The hits from each search were screened based on titles and abstracts. The result of this step was a list of candidate papers. This step was completed by two researchers individually.
2. The lists of the two researchers were compared, and all papers included by one or both researchers were included for the next step.
3. The full body of the candidate papers was screened again by two researchers individually. The result was a refined list of candidate papers.
4. The lists of the two researchers were compared. Disagreements were solved by discussing each paper, where the researcher made different decisions until a consensus was reached. The output of this step was reviewed by a third researcher.
5. Backwards snowballing was applied by considering all papers referenced by the set of papers from (4). Steps 1-4 were repeated for those papers, resulting in a final set of included publications.  
The screening process is documented in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram displayed in Figure 2, which is based on [8; 9].