Cyberscams present a global threat with serious financial and psychological impacts. People with acquired brain injury (ABI) have been identified as particularly vulnerable to cyberscams due to injury-related cognitive and psychosocial challenges and require targeted vulnerability assessment tools and prevention strategies. Longitudinal research is needed to identify predictive factors to inform prevention efforts. This study aimed to evaluate the predictive validity of a cyberscam measure and identify biopsychosocial factors related to subsequent cyberscam victimization. Using a longitudinal design, 197 participants (97 with ABI; 100 without) completed an online survey at baseline (T1) and again after 1 year (T2). Measures assessed cybersafety (The CyberAbility Scale), community integration, loneliness, trust, impulsivity, and mood. Logistic and multiple regressions were conducted between risk factor variables and outcomes of self-reported scam experience and scores on The CyberAbility Scale. Higher loneliness, lower mood, and being impulsive increased the chances of experiencing a future cyberscam, with loneliness the strongest predictor. Multiple binomial regression showed that older age, being female, and being more impulsive at T1 contributed to increased likelihood of a scam experience at T2. Modifiable psychosocial factors of loneliness and mood and vulnerable demographic groups have been identified and require targeted cyberscam prevention strategies. Findings support The CyberAbility Scale as a useful tool to screen clients who may be vulnerable to future cyberscam victimization. Future research should expand these findings in other disability, cultural, or linguistic cohorts and explore broader cyberscam risk factors.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Disability in Australia: Acquired Brain Injury. Bulletin. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Canberra; 2007.
3.
BrunnerM, HemsleyB, PalmerS, et al.Review of the literature on the use of social media by people with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Disabil Rehabil2015;37(17):1511–1521; doi: 10.3109/09638288.2015.1045992
4.
BrunnerM, PalmerS, TogherL, et al.‘I kind of figured it out’: The views and experiences of people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in using social media—self-determination for participation and inclusion online. Int J Lang Commun Disord2019;54(2):221–233; doi: org/10.1111/1460-6984.12405
5.
KilovAM, TogherL, PowerE, et al.Can teenagers with traumatic brain injury use Internet chatrooms? A systematic review of the literature and the Internet. Brain Inj2010;24(10):1135–1172; doi: 10.3109/02699052.2010.490511
6.
TsaousidesT, MatsuzawaY, LebowitzM. Familiarity and prevalence of Facebook use for social networking among individuals with traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj2011;25(12):1155–1162; doi: 10.3109/02699052.2011.613086
7.
GouldKR, CarolanM, PonsfordJL. Do we need to know about cyberscams in neurorehabilitation? Brain Impair2023;24(2):229–244; doi: 10.1017/BrImp.2022.13
8.
JourdanC, BayenE, Pradat-DiehlP, et al.A comprehensive picture of 4-year outcome of severe brain injuries. Results from the PariS-TBI study. Ann Phys Rehabil Med2016;59(2):100–106; doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2015.10.009
9.
LezakMD, HowiesonDB, LoringDW, et al.Neuropsychological Assessment. Oxford University Press: New York; 2004.
10.
MathiasJL, WheatonP. Changes in attention and information-processing speed following severe traumatic brain injury: A meta-analytic review. Neuropsychology2007;21(2):212–223; doi: 10.1037/0894-4105.21.2.212
11.
PonsfordJL, DowningMG, OlverJ, et al.Longitudinal follow-up of patients with traumatic brain injury: Outcome at two, five, and ten years post-injury. J Neurotrauma2014;31(1):64–77; doi: 10.1089/neu.2013.2997
12.
VakilE. The effect of moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) on different aspects of memory: A selective review. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol2005;27(8):977–1021; doi: 10.1080/09638288.2025.2520994
13.
WillmottC, PonsfordJ, HockingC, et al.Factors contributing to attentional impairments after traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychology2009;23(4):424–432; doi: 10.1037/a0015058
14.
DeLiemaM, LiY, MottolaG. Correlates of responding to and becoming victimized by fraud: Examining risk factors by scam type. Int J Consumer Studies2023;47(3):1042–1059; doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12886
15.
WhittyMT. Do you love me? Psychological characteristics of romance scam victims. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw2018;21(2):105–109; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2016.0729
16.
GouldKR, CarminatiJ, PonsfordJL. “They just say how stupid I was for being conned”. Cyberscams and acquired brain injury: A qualitative exploration of the lived experience of survivors and close others. Neuropsychol Rehabil2023;33(2):325–345; doi: 10.1080/09602011.2021.2016447
17.
CarminatiJ-Y, WileyJF, PonsfordJ, et al.The perfect storm of Cyberscam risk: Examining personal, injury, and psychosocial risk factors for people with and without acquired brain injury. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw2025;28(4):275–283; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2024.0435
18.
ModicD, LeaS. How neurotic are scam victims, really? The big five and internet scams. Exeter, United Kingdom; 2012; doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2448130
19.
TitusRM, GloverAR. Personal fraud: The victims and the scams. In: Repeat Victimisation: Crime Prevention StudiesCriminal Justice Press; 2001; pp. 133–151; doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_128
20.
WhittyMT. The scammers persuasive techniques model: Development of a stage model to explain the online dating romance scam. Br J Criminol2013;53(4):665–684; doi: 10.1093/bjc/azt009
21.
WhittyMT. Anatomy of the online dating romance scam. Secur J2015;28(4):443–455; doi: 10.1057/sj.2012.57
22.
WhittyMT. Is there a scam for everyone? Psychologically profiling cyberscam victims. Eur J Crim Policy Res2020;26(3):399–409; doi: 10.1007/s10610-020-09458-z
23.
JamesBD, BoylePA, BennettDA. Correlates of susceptibility to scams in older adults without dementia. J Elder Abuse Negl2014;26(2):107–122; doi: 10.1080/08946566.2013.821809
24.
ShaoJ, ZhangQ, RenY, et al.Why are older adults victims of fraud? Current knowledge and prospects regarding older adults’ vulnerability to fraud. J Elder Abuse Negl2019;31(3):225–243; doi: 10.1080/08946566.2019.1625842
25.
JudgesRA, GallantSN, YangL, et al.The role of cognition, personality, and trust in fraud victimization in older adults. Front Psychol2017;8:588; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00588
26.
WilsonRS, YuL, JamesBD, et al.Association of financial and health literacy with cognitive health in old age. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn2017;24(2):186–197; doi: 10.1080/13825585.2016.1178210
27.
BurtonA, CooperC, DarA, et al.Exploring how, why and in what contexts older adults are at risk of financial cybercrime victimisation: A realist review. Exp Gerontol2022;159:111678; doi: 10.1016/j.exger.2021.111678
28.
CarminatiJ-Y, WileyJF, PonsfordJL, et al.Development and validation of The CyberAbility Scale: A screening tool of cyberscam risk for people with and without acquired brain injury. Disabil Rehabil2026;48(4):1100–1111; doi: 10.1080/09638288.2025.2520994
29.
CarminatiJ-YJ, PonsfordJL, GouldKR. Co-developing ‘The CyberABIlity Scale’ to assess vulnerability to cyberscams for people with acquired brain injury: Delphi and cognitive interviews with clinicians and people with acquired brain injury. Brain Impair2024;25(1):IB23065; doi: 10.1071/IB23065
30.
CallawayL, WinklerD, TippettA, et al.The Community Integration Questionnaire-Revised (CIQ-R). Summer Foundation Ltd: Melbourne, Australia; 2014.
31.
LeeJ, CagleJG. Validating the 11-item revised University of California Los Angeles scale to assess loneliness among older adults: An evaluation of factor structure and other measurement properties. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry2017;25(11):1173–1183; doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2017.06.004
32.
GoldbergLR, JohnsonJA, EberHW, et al.The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. J Res Personal2006;40(1):84–96; doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007
33.
CydersMA, LittlefieldAK, CoffeyS, et al.Examination of a short English version of the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale. Addict Behav2014;39(9):1372–1376; doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.02.013
34.
ZigmondAS, SnaithRP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand1983;67(6):361–370; doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x
35.
HarrisPA, TaylorR, ThielkeR, et al.Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform2009;42(2):377–381; doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
36.
HarrisPA, TaylorR, MinorBL, et al.; REDCap Consortium. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform2019;95:103208; doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208
37.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2021.
38.
RevelleW. Psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. 2023.
39.
XavierR, TurckN, HainardA, et al.pROC: An open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinform2011; doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-77
40.
HooZH, CandlishJ, TeareD. What is an ROC curve? Emerg Med J2017;34(6):357–359; doi: 10.1136/emermed-2017-206735
41.
DrewJM, CrossC. Fraud and its PREY: Conceptualising social engineering tactics and its impact on financial literacy outcomes. J Financ Serv Mark2013;18(3):188–198; doi: 10.1057/fsm.2013.14
42.
CazanisA, CarminatiJ-Y, ChewK, et al.“Falling into a black hole”: A qualitative exploration of the lived experiences of Cyberscam victim-survivors and their social support networks. Vict Offenders2025;0(0):1–20; doi: 10.1080/15564886.2025.2481267
43.
WhittyMT. Predicting susceptibility to cyber-fraud victimhood. JFC2019;26(1):277–292; doi: 10.1108/JFC-10-2017-0095
44.
ACCC. Targeting Scams Report of the ACCC on Scams Activity 2022. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission: Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia; 2023.
45.
ZhangK. Digital disability: A new risk to older people in digital societies. Int J Public Health2024;69:1607303; doi: 10.3389/ijph.2024.1607303
46.
TummalaP, ChoiH, GuptaA, et al.Design challenges for scam prevention tools to protect neurodiverse and older adult populations. In: 2024 IEEE 6th International Conference on Trust, Privacy and Security in Intelligent Systems, and Applications (TPS-ISA)2024; pp. 437–441; doi: 10.1109/TPS-ISA62245.2024.00058
47.
RenaudK, Coles-KempL. Accessible and inclusive cyber security: A nuanced and complex challenge. SN Comput Sci2022;3(5):346; doi: 10.1007/s42979-022-01239-1
48.
ButtonM, CrossC. Cyber Frauds, Scams and Their Victims. Taylor & Francis; 2017.
49.
WhittyMT, BuchananT. The online dating romance scam: The psychological impact on victims—both financial and non-financial. Criminol Crim Justice2016;16(2):176–194; doi: 10.1177/1748895815603773
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
