A measure of how well users understand security concepts tested through assessments, such as phishing recognition, data privacy, passwords, and mobile security. Knowledge levels complement behavioral metrics by showing whether training is improving understanding, not just changing one campaign result. They are especially useful in regulated environments.
What Knowledge Level Measures
Knowledge level is a training metric that shows how well users understand security concepts, usually by checking whether they can recognise or explain topics such as phishing, password hygiene, privacy, and mobile security. It measures comprehension, not just participation.
That makes it useful when organisations want to know whether awareness activity is actually landing. A campaign can change click rates or completion rates without improving understanding, so knowledge levels help separate surface behaviour from real learning.
How Knowledge Level Complements Behavioural Metrics
Behavioural metrics tell you what people did in response to a control or campaign, while knowledge levels tell you what they know. The two are related but not interchangeable, and a strong result in one does not guarantee strength in the other.
This distinction matters in security awareness programmes because a user may avoid one phishing simulation through luck, habit, or prior exposure, yet still fail to explain the warning signs or the reason behind a secure action. Knowledge metrics help reveal whether the underlying understanding is present.
Used well, knowledge level adds context to trend reporting. It can show whether repeated training is creating durable comprehension, whether certain topics remain weak, and whether different user groups need different reinforcement.
Why Knowledge Level Matters in Security Governance
Knowledge level becomes more valuable when training must be defensible, repeatable, and auditable. In regulated environments, organisations often need more than anecdotal confidence that awareness efforts exist, they need evidence that users can demonstrate a baseline understanding of required security behaviour.
It is also useful for prioritising education content. If assessment results show weak understanding of password reuse, privacy handling, or mobile device risk, the programme can target those gaps rather than treating awareness as a single undifferentiated campaign.
When compared with operational metrics, knowledge scores can help explain why a control is or is not working. Low knowledge can indicate a communications problem, poor retention, confusing content, or a mismatch between training material and actual user risk.
Common Pitfalls When Interpreting Knowledge Level
Knowledge level is easy to overread. A high score does not prove secure behaviour in real situations, and a lower score does not always mean the control failed, because test design, question difficulty, and familiarity with the format can influence results.
It is also possible to overfocus on the metric itself and forget the underlying purpose. The point is not to maximise test scores in isolation, but to determine whether people understand the concepts that matter to the organisation’s risk profile.
For that reason, knowledge level works best when it is treated as one part of a broader measurement model, alongside behavioural outcomes, incident trends, and targeted follow-up where gaps are identified.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
NIST CSF 2.0, NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and CIS Controls v8 set the technical controls, while ISO/IEC 27001:2022 defines the regulatory obligations.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| NIST CSF 2.0 | PR.AT-01 — Awareness and Training | Knowledge level directly measures whether users understand security awareness content. |
| Recommendation — Use awareness assessments to confirm users understand key security concepts, not just that they completed training. | ||
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 | AT-2 — Awareness Training | Awareness training requires measuring whether personnel know the security concepts taught. |
| Recommendation — Evaluate training comprehension so awareness efforts can be adjusted based on measured understanding. | ||
| ISO/IEC 27001:2022 | A.6.3 — Information security awareness, education and training | Knowledge level is a direct way to evidence awareness and education effectiveness. |
| Recommendation — Measure security awareness understanding to support the effectiveness of training and education controls. | ||
| CIS Controls v8 | CIS-14 — Security Awareness and Skills Training | Knowledge checks validate whether awareness and skills training improved understanding. |
| Recommendation — Assess user understanding after training and use the results to refine awareness content. | ||
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
Deepen Your Knowledge
Reviewed and updated by the NHIMG editorial team on September 27, 2026.
NHI Mgmt Group — the #1 independent authority on Non-Human Identity, IAM, and Agentic AI security. nhimg.org
