## 5 Results
### Evaluating the Guide by Experts  
Fifteen experts from Latin America completed the instrument. Table 3 presents the results of the quantitative responses to the questionnaires sent to the experts. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Question** & **Criteria for Evaluation** & **Categories of Responses** & **Evaluation by the Experts (\(n\) = 15)** \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{First question} & & Very easy & 5 (33.3) \\ \cline{2-3}  & & Easy & 5 (33.3) \\ \cline{2-3}  & Navigability: \(n\) (\%) & Neutral & 3 (20) \\ \cline{2-3}  & & Hard & 1 (6.7) \\ \cline{2-3}  & & Very hard & 1 (6.7) \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{Second question} & & Very clear and understandable & 2 (13.3) \\ \cline{2-3}  & Clear and understandable & Clear and understandable & 11 (73.3) \\ \cline{2-3}  & information: \(n\) (\%) & Unclear and incomprehensible & 2 (13.3) \\ \cline{2-3}  & & Very unclear and incomprehensible & 0 (0) \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{Third question} & & All questions are relevant & 8 (53.3) \\ \cline{2-3}  & & Most questions are relevant & 4 (26.7) \\ \cline{2-3}  & Relevance of the questions: \(n\) (\%) & Some questions are relevant & 3 (20) \\ \cline{2-3}  & & Few questions are relevant & 0 (0) \\ \cline{2-3}  & & They are not relevant & 0 (0) \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{Fifth question} & & Very useful & 3 (20) \\ \cline{2-3}  & & Useful & 9 (60) \\ \cline{2-3}  & Helpfulness of suggestions: \(n\) (\%) & Neutral & 2 (13.3) \\ \cline{2-3}  & & Nothing useful & 1 (6.7) \\ \cline{2-3}  & & Not very useful & 0 (0) \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{S Seventh question} & & Very clear and effective & 4 (26.7) \\ \cline{2-3}  & & Clear and effective & 8 (53.3) \\ \cline{2-3}  & & Neutral & 3 (20) \\ \cline{2-3}  & & Unclear and ineffective & 0 (0) \\ \cline{2-3}  & & Nothing is clear and ineffective & 0 (0) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Eighth question} & Effectiveness of using the guide: mean (SD) & 7.8 (1.42) \\ \cline{2-3}  & & SD: standard deviation. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Assessment by the panel of experts. From Table 3, it can be highlighted that most experts found the guide to be easy or very easy (66.9%) to navigate, 86.6% had a positive view of the clarity and comprehensibility of the information, and 80% considered most or all of the questions relevant and that the suggestions were useful or very useful. In addition, this same percentage considered that the diagrams were clear or very clear and effective. Finally, the overall guideline score on average was 7.8 (\(\pm\)1.42). Concerning the open-ended questions, the qualitative responses are detailed below. To expand on the information in the third question, **the fourth question** (_Which ones do you not consider relevant and why?_) was designed to compile relevant suggestions to improve the questions proposed by the practice implementation guide. Some experts recommended modifying the following question to have a Likert scale of 3 or 5 values and to be worded differently: The instrument question: are incident response workflows automated to facilitate rapid incident detection, response, and resolution? Should it be: What percentage of your workflows have automated incident responses to facilitate rapid incident, response, and resolution? Poor (less than 20%), Low (21% to 40%), Medium (41% to 60%), High (61% to 80%), and Very High (81% to 100%). This also allows for defining the level of each company better. The scales should not be generic but dependent on the question. **The sixth question** (_Which ones do you not consider relevant and why?_) gathers observations based on the fifth question to refine suggestions that can increase the adoption of the guide as a tool for ownership of practices in VSEs. On the one hand, it is recommended that all diagrams be left in Spanish and future guides be created in other languages if required, because the target audience is currently Spanish-speaking Latin American companies.