Most training programs in the security space operate on reputation. Somebody with credentials puts together a curriculum, delivers it with confidence, and the organization trusts that it works.
We did that too, in the early days. But trust isn't a metric. So starting in 2008, we invited independent researchers to measure what the training actually does to the people who take it.
That last part matters. These weren't internal assessments or customer satisfaction surveys. They were independent academic and military research efforts conducted by organizations including the Army Research Institute, the Office of Naval Research, and multiple university labs.
Here's what they found.
Dr. Andrew Spiker's research concluded that "Combat Profiling represents a very unique form of training from a psychological perspective." His team measured how the training changed the way operators processed environmental information and found measurable shifts in attentional patterns.
This one tested knowledge retention. The finding: "Knowledge retention held at 2 months with no significant degradation." That's unusual for any training program, especially one delivered in a compressed timeframe.
The ARI study measured situational awareness across multiple evaluation methods and found "measurable SA improvement across every evaluation method used." Not some methods. Every method.
Research validation does 3 things for a buyer:
The full research library is available on our Science page. If you want to talk about what the data means for your specific team, request a training quote.