## 4 Research Methodology
### Instrument Development and Validation Process
#### 4.1.2 Questionnaire Validation Process  
A validity review is used to determine an instrument's validity, which is a measure of the instrument's precision and the degree to which it applies to what is systematic [103].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c l c c} \hline \hline
**No** & **Question** & **Measurement** & **Location of Questions in the Questionnaire** & **Items** \\ \hline
1 & Respondents Profile and & & & \\ Cyberattacks Levels and Controls & Multiple Choice Questions & Section 1: Qi–Q11 & 11 \\ \hline  & & & Section 2: PS1–PS6 & 6 \\ \multirow{2}{*}{2} & Protection Motivation Theory & & Section 2: PV1–PV7 & 7 \\  & Related Measurements & 5-point Likert Scale rating & Section 2: SE1–S66 & 6 \\ \multirow{2}{*}{3} & & Section 2: RE1–RE6 & 6 \\  & & Section 2: RC1–RC6 & 6 \\ \hline  & & Section 3: OF1–OFF6 & 6 \\ \multirow{2}{*}{4} & & Section 3: GF1–CF6 & 6 \\  & & Section 4: SCS1–SC5 & 6 \\ \multirow{2}{*}{2} & Cybersecurity Leadership Related (CL) & 5-point Likert Scale rating & Section 4: PSF1–PS6 & 6\({}^{*}\) \\  & & Section 4: ICA1–ICA6 & 6\({}^{*}\) \\ \hline
5 & Cyberattack Prevention & 5-point Likert Scale rating & Section 5: CP1–CP6 & 6 \\ \hline  & & & Total Items & 78 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Authors decided to use only the most tow highest internal consistency items form each construct.  
\end{table}
Table 5: Structure of questionnaire.  
This research followed series of steps to validate the questionnaire as an instrument for data collection. Therefore, content validity took place to make sure questionnaire contents are relevant to the researched topic and free of linguistic errors. The content validity is performed through two ways, experts' review and pilot test. During experts' content validity, a fundamental component of a successful study design is measuring the survey questionnaire's validity and reliability and carrying out corrections ([PERSON] et al., 1982 [104]). For this reason, five (5) experts were surveyed, and in addition to using the items from the previous research as the basis for the survey, the survey's content and framework were validated by experts. These experts were academics who are regarded as subject matter experts since they had a Ph.D. in cybersecurity from a public university and have worked for at least five years in the field. The experts were asked to review every question in the questionnaire and make suggestions for changes based on their findings [103]. Following the completion of expert's instrument validation, the questionnaire was prepared for a pilot test. As a result, the study has produced a professional survey that is concisely written, straightforward, and simple to respond to. To confirm the reliability of the instrument, a pilot test was conducted through analyzing the data gathered from 30 bank employee participants, which showed that the value of [PERSON]'s alpha for all variables was acceptable, ranging from 0.744 for (self-efficacy) to 0.910 for (perceived severity), which indicates good reliability and adequate internal consistency of the measurements. Respondents were asked to rate how much they agreed or disagreed with each statement on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagreed; 2 = disagreed; 3 = neutral; 4 = agreed and 5 = strongly agreed). Additionally, the respondents were asked to identify any questions that they felt were cloudy or unclear. As a result, the study has produced a professional survey that is concisely written, straightforward, and simple to respond to. Through this pilot test, the questionnaires' content validity was established.