Purpose This study tests how cybersecurity awareness, authentic/quality assessment design and perceived deterrence jointly shape academic-integrity climate and, through it, strengthen AACSB accreditation alignment in GCC business schools. This research position climate as the conduit translating secure behavior and assessment practices into credible Assurance-of-Learning evidence under AACSB Standard 5. The research further argues that accreditation maturity – years since initial accreditation or latest CIR – amplifies the climate alignment link by institutionalizing routines, calibrated rubrics, versioned repositories and audit trails. Recasting alignment as a second-order dependent construct, the study links integrity governance with accreditation outcomes and offers a theory of change for rapidly digitizing GCC contexts. practical. Design/methodology/approach Multisource, cross-sectional data were collected across six GCC countries from students (cybersecurity awareness, integrity climate), faculty/course leads (authentic/quality assessment design) and administrators (accreditation maturity), with external experts rating AACSB alignment via an Assurance-of-Learning rubric anchored to Standard 5. After screening, the final dataset comprised 482 valid cases. Analyses used SmartPLS 4 with nonparametric bootstrapping (10,000 subsamples). Measurement quality met accepted thresholds (Cronbach's a = 0.86, composite reliability = 0.90, AVE = 0.61; HTMT 0.85); common-method bias checks indicated no problematic inflation (full-collinearity VIFs = 2.50; marker path nonsignificant). Predictive strength and fit were adequate (R2AIC = 0.56; R2AACSB = 0.49; SRMR = 0.061; Q2 0). Findings All three antecedents positively predicted AACSB alignment: cybersecurity awareness (β = 0.18, p = 0.001), authentic/quality assessment design (β = 0.24, p 0.001) and perceived deterrence (β = 0.12, p = 0.041). Academic-integrity climate was the central mechanism, partially mediating each antecedent's effect on alignment. Accreditation maturity significantly strengthened the climate? alignment pathway, showing that schools further along in accreditation translate integrity norms into standards-consistent evidence more effectively. Predictive power was substantive for the mediator and outcome (R2AIC = 0.56; R2AACSB = 0.49), and demographic controls on alignment were nonsignificant. Overall, secure behavior, authentic design and credible deterrence operate chiefly through organizational climate, with maturity amplifying this conduit in rapidly digitizing GCC contexts. empirically robust. Research limitations/implications Cross-sectional, multisource data limit causal inference; several constructs include self-report, and expert rubric ratings – though reliable – may reflect rater stringency and documentation differences. Generalizability is bound to AACSB-pursuing GCC schools, and unmeasured institutional factors (e.g. IT governance, LMS analytics) may bias estimates. Integrity dynamics may also shift as generative-AI policies evolve. Practically, deans and AoL leaders should pair evidence-based awareness programs with authentic, process-revealing assessments; maintain credible deterrence with transparent sanctions; manage integrity climate as a KPI; and invest in maturity enablers: stable AoL committees, calibrated rubrics, version-controlled repositories, auditable trails and analytics dashboards that sustain the climate alignment linkage documented here. Originality/value The study's novelty lies in modeling accreditation alignment as a measurable dependent construct and integrating security behavior and assessment design into a single mediated-moderated framework.
Esra AlDhaen (Mon,) studied this question.