## 3 Materials and Methods
### Measures  
Evaluating the QDA tools involved a comprehensive assessment from two perspectives: the task's complexity and the user experience (_UX_) during task completion. Each tool was assessed using standardized surveys designed to evaluate five dimensions: _UX_, _usability_, _trust_, _mental workload_, and _task difficulty_. To achieve this, three questionnaires were designed, each tailored to specific stages of the evaluation process. These surveys captured multiple aspects of UX and usability, and Figure 4 provides an overview of the evaluated factors and their corresponding measurement instruments.  
The evaluations relied on self-reported scales, reflecting participants' perceptions rather than objective behavior or cognitive process measures. It is important to note that reported trust levels may not directly correspond to trust exhibited in decision-making, and perceptions of workload or difficulty may diverge from actual task performance or cognitive load.  
Participants' general information, including gender, familiarity with chatbots, and the frequency of chatbot use, was collected using a concise _Demographic Survey_.  
Following task completion, a second questionnaire (_Task Survey_) was administered to gather insights into users' effort and experience while completing tasks. This survey measured three key factors: _mental workload_, _perceived task difficulty_, and _emotional affect_. The _NASA-TLX_ instrument [75] was used to assess six dimensions of workload: mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand, performance, effort, and frustration. Each subscale was rated on a 1-20 scale, with an overall score of 0-100 calculated as a simple sum (referred to as Raw TLX or RTLX [76]). Task difficulty was evaluated using the _Single  
Figure 4: Surveys Used in the Experiment, Including Measured Factors and Corresponding Measurement Instruments.  
Figure 3: Familiarity and Frequency of use for AI Chatbots.  
_Ease Question (SEQ)_, a validated 7-point Likert scale that performs comparably to other task complexity measures [77]. Additionally, emotional responses were assessed using the _I-PANAS-SF_, a ten-item scale that measures both positive and negative affect [78].  
A third survey (_Tool Survey_) focused on the _usability_, _UX_, and _trust_ associated with each tool. _UX_ was evaluated using the _UEQ-S_ instrument, a shorter version of the User Experience Questionnaire [79]. This tool measures pragmatic and hedonic qualities with 8 items, on a scale ranging from \(-3\) to \(+3\) and allows benchmarking against reference values established from 468 studies [80]. _Usability_ was assessed with the _System Usability Scale (SUS)_, which provides scores ranging from 0 to 100 and allows comparisons with established benchmarks [81, 82]. Furthermore, a _net promoter score (NPS)_ was derived from the SUS results as a measure of user loyalty [83]. The final dimension, _trust_, was evaluated using the _TOAST_ instrument [84], which features two subscales measuring performance trust and understanding trust. This tool uses a seven-point Likert scale. Higher scores on the performance subscale indicate that the user trusts the system to help them perform their tasks, while higher scores on the understanding subscale indicate users' confidence in the appropriate calibration of their trust. Detailed translations and descriptions of the survey items are provided in the Supplementary Materials to ensure transparency and replicability.