## 3 Research Methodology and Empirical Analysis
### Research Design: Pre-Tests and Final Questionnaire Development  
All methods adhered to the ethical principles and code of conduct of the American Psychological Association (2017), a widely accepted standard for questionnaire and human factors research. The experimental protocols were approved by the State Key Laboratory of Advanced Rail Autonomous Operation at Beijing Jiaotong University, which was upgraded from the former State Key Lab of Rail Traffic Control and Safety. The laboratory maintains a comprehensive management organization and ethics committee. All participants provided informed consent before the study and were free to withdraw at any time, with the option to delete their data. Data security was ensured throughout the research process.  
To explore the conceptual framework of the hypotheses and their influence paths shown in Figure 1 we initially developed 33 items based on the constructs outlined in Table 1. These items were evaluated by 20 manager-level dispatchers from the Beijing subway, who assisted in refining the wording and ensuring the clarity, validity, and non-redundancy of the questions. This process ensured that each question was simple, unambiguous, and distinct from others.  
To verify the reliability and validity of the scale, a preliminary version of the questionnaire was distributed to 79 senior dispatchers (mean length of service: 8.6 years, SD = 3.6, min = 5, max = 38) who had participated in the China Dispatcher Skills Competition. After the reliability testing, cluster analysis, and post-response interviews, the questionnaire was further streamlined. The final version of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix A. The six latent variables and their corresponding questionnaire items (observed variables) are detailed in the left section of Table 1 in Appendix B (items 1-18). The first half of the questionnaire comprised 18 questions assessed using a 7-point Likert scale, with at least one reverse question per latent variable to evaluate response quality.  
The second part of the questionnaire focused on task complexity under two working conditions as follows: routine monitoring and emergency response. Based on the literature and the dispatchers' actual work experience [57], task complexity was measured across 10 dimensions [58]. Pre-experiment interviews confirmed significant variability in task complexity between these conditions. The second part of the questionnaire measures task complexity across 10 dimensions for both routine monitoring and emergency response. The specific items for task complexity are included in Appendix A (items 21-40), with their alignment to the Task Complexity dimensions shown in the right section of Table 1 in Appendix B.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline \hline
**Construct** & **Factor Code** & **Conceptual Definitions and Sources** \\ \hline Reliance Behavior on ATS & RBR & The extent to which the dispatcher relies on and benefits from the \\ under Routine Monitoring & & ATS system during routine monitoring conditions [55; 56]. \\ Reliance Behavior on ATS & RBE & The extent to which the dispatcher relies on and benefits from the \\ under Emergency Response & & ATS system during emergency response conditions [55; 56]. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: _Cont._  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Hypothesis Code** & **H1** & **H2a** & **H2b** & **H3** & **H4a** & **H4b** & **H4c** & **H5a** & **H5b** \\ \hline Predictor Code & TAI & ASK & ASK & ACR & DTA & DTA & RBR & ACR & ACR \\ Dependent Code & DTA & DTA & TAI & DTA & RBR & RBE & RBR & RBE \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Hypotheses and variable relationships.