CISM Information Security Programme Practice Question
Which of the following is a leading indicator of security program effectiveness?
⚠ Common exam trap
CISM often tests the leading vs. lagging distinction by offering operational metrics like MTTD that feel proactive but are actually lagging because they measure events already in progress.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Phishing click rate
A leading indicator predicts future security outcomes rather than measuring past events. Phishing click rate measures how susceptible users are to social engineering and is a forward-looking predictor of potential compromise, making it a leading indicator. By contrast, incident counts, breach counts, and MTTD are lagging indicators because they describe events that have already occurred or been detected.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Number of security incidents
Why it's wrong here
Incident counts are lagging: they tally events that already bypassed preventive controls, revealing nothing about future effectiveness. It is tempting because incident trends feel diagnostic, and this metric is the correct choice when reporting operational workload or historical security posture rather than forecasting programme strength.
- ✗
Number of data breaches
Why it's wrong here
Breach counts are lagging indicators: they record incidents after controls have already failed, so they cannot forecast programme effectiveness. It is tempting because breaches are the outcome executives care about, and they are the correct choice when measuring historical impact or reporting past performance rather than predicting future resilience.
- ✓
Phishing click rate
Why this is correct
Phishing click rate measures user susceptibility before an actual breach occurs, making it predictive rather than historical. It satisfies the stem's demand for a leading indicator by revealing a control weakness (security awareness) that precedes and forecasts future incident likelihood, unlike lagging metrics such as breach counts.
- ✗
Mean time to detect (MTTD)
Why it's wrong here
MTTD measures how quickly detection occurs after an event, so it reports past detection performance rather than predicting future control strength. It is tempting because faster detection sounds proactive, and it is the correct choice when assessing detection capability or SOC responsiveness, not when identifying a leading indicator of programme effectiveness.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This CISM question is part of Courseiva's 924-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written and reviewed by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
Last reviewed September 2026 · checked against the official ISACA exam blueprint
This CISM practice question is part of Courseiva's free ISACA certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the CISM exam.