Capture-the-flag (CTF) competitions are widely used for cybersecurity training and informal assessment, yet their measurement properties are rarely reported. We evaluated five editions of a national CTF event held between 2018 and 2025 using 94 challenges, 58 teams, 1393 submission attempts, and a 2025 participant survey (n = 38). KR-20 point estimates ranged from 0.72 to 0.82, but were imprecise except in the largest edition; sensitivity analyses treating unattempted items as missing produced weaker, assumption-dependent estimates. Across the corpus, 34% of items had no response variance, and 22% were never attempted. Author-assigned points tracked observed difficulty only weakly (pooled ρ = −0.40, 95% CI [−0.57, −0.19]). Across four coding procedures, technical knowledge was prominent (78–94 items), analytical skills varied substantially (35–70), and ethics, communication, and risk management were absent. A degree-preserving null reproduced an apparent breadth–performance association, indicating a mechanical artifact. Submission precision increased from approximately 0.15 in 2018 to 0.69 in 2025 (Jonckheere–Terpstra z = 6.15, p < 0.001). Overall, reliability alone does not establish validity: CTF scores provide useful but incomplete evidence for broad inferences about cybersecurity competence, particularly with small samples and selective item engagement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Regvart et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: