## 3 Research Methodology and Empirical Analysis
### Structural Equation Modeling and Hypothesis Validation
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**95\% Confidence Intervals**} & \\
**Latent** & **Observed** & **Estimate** & **SE** & **Lower** & **Upper** & \(\beta\) & **z** & \(p\) & **AVE** \\ \hline ACR & ACR.Q2 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0.950 & & & 0.753 \\ ACR.Q3 & 1.052 & 0.122 & 0.813 & 1.292 & 0.809 & 8.612 & \textless{}0.001 & \\ ASK & ASK.Q1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0.798 & & & 0.735 \\ ASK.Q2 & 1.209 & 0.102 & 1.009 & 1.408 & 0.838 & 11.891 & \textless{}0.001 & \\ TAI & TAI.Q1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0.869 & & & 0.779 \\  & TAI.Q2 & 1.204 & 0.081 & 1.046 & 1.362 & 0.898 & 14.938 & \textless{}0.001 & \\  & TAI.Q3 & 1.043 & 0.072 & 0.902 & 1.184 & 0.877 & 14.482 & \textless{}0.001 & \\ DTA & DTA.Q1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0.858 & & & 0.732 \\  & DTA.Q2 & 0.927 & 0.070 & 0.789 & 1.064 & 0.884 & 13.229 & \textless{}0.001 & \\  & DTA.Q3 & 0.870 & 0.071 & 0.732 & 1.009 & 0.824 & 12.336 & \textless{}0.001 & \\ RBR & RBR.Q1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0.859 & & 0.79 \\  & RBR.Q2 & 1.125 & 0.071 & 0.985 & 1.265 & 0.938 & 15.769 & \textless{}0.001 & \\  & RBR.Q3 & 1.056 & 0.074 & 0.911 & 1.200 & 0.866 & 14.339 & \textless{}0.001 & \\ RBE & RBE.Q1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0.913 & & 0.751 \\  & RBE.Q2 & 0.868 & 0.065 & 0.740 & 0.996 & 0.822 & 13.272 & \textless{}0.001 & \\  & RBE.Q3 & 0.911 & 0.065 & 0.784 & 1.037 & 0.859 & 14.107 & \textless{}0.001 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Confirmatory factors of the SEM. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted to examine the influence of factors on trust and its outcomes, thereby testing the hypotheses. The analysis was performed using JAMOVI 2.3.21 with the semlj 1.1.6 module. The initial hypothetical structural model revealed two insignificant or weak path coefficients as follows: between automation trust and reliance behavior in emergencies (\(\beta=-0.049\), \(p=0.583\), Hypothesis 4b) and between personal knowledge and automation trust (\(\beta=0.090\), \(p=0.431\), Hypothesis 2a), as shown in Table 6. Contrary to the prior hypotheses, personal knowledge did not significantly affect trust, leading to the rejection of Hypothesis 2a as follows: the dispatcher's ATS system knowledge directly affects the dispatcher's trust in the ATS system. Similarly, Hypothesis 4b--dispatchers' trust in the ATS system affects their reliance behavior on ATS under emergency response--was also rejected. These insignificant parameters were subsequently removed from the model. The goodness-of-fit (GOF) of the measurement and structural models was evaluated using recommended indices for sample sizes under 250 and observed variables between 12 and 30 [60]. The fine-tuned model demonstrated good overall fit, as follows: \(\chi^{2}(111,\text{N}=160)=220\) (\(p<0.001\)), RMSEA = 0.078, TLI = 0.930, CFI = 0.943, and NFI = 0.893. The standardized path estimates for the model are presented in Figure 2, with detailed coefficients between latent variables provided in Table 7. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**95\% Confidence**} & & & & & \\  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Intervals**} & & & & & & **Hypothesis** & **Validation** \\ \hline
**Dep** & **Pred** & **Estimate** & **SE** & **Lower** & **Upper** & \(\beta\) & **z** & \(p\) & & \\ \hline DTA & TAI & 0.204 & 0.115 & \(-\)0.021 & 0.429 & 0.182 & 1.778 & 0.075 & H1 & \\ DTA & ASK & 0.122 & 0.155 & \(-\)0.181 & 0.425 & 0.090 & 0.788 & 0.431 & H2a & Rejected \\ TAI & ASK & 0.662 & 0.102 & 0.461 & 0.862 & 0.548 & 6.463 & \textless{}0.001 & H2b & \\ DTA & ACR & 0.206 & 0.098 & 0.015 & 0.398 & 0.208 & 2.113 & 0.035 & H3 & \\ RBR & DTA & 0.172 & 0.076 & 0.024 & 0.321 & 0.201 & 2.269 & 0.023 & H4a & \\ RBE & DTA & \(-\)0.040 & 0.074 & \(-\)0.185 & 0.104 & \(-\)0.049 & \(-\)0.549 & 0.583 & H4b & Rejected \\ RBE & RBR & 0.277 & 0.084 & 0.112 & 0.442 & 0.286 & 3.290 & 0.001 & H4c & \\ RBR & ACR & 0.168 & 0.076 & 0.020 & 0.316 & 0.197 & 2.228 & 0.026 & H5a & \\ RBE & ACR & 0.187 & 0.074 & 0.042 & 0.332 & 0.227 & 2.522 & 0.012 & H5b & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}