Is it worth giving two scores, one for “how well it worked while I was doing it” and one for “how well it worked, taking into account whether I gave up using it”? My impression is that it’s quite common for an anti-akrasia technique to work well right up to the point where one becomes akratic about actually using it.
The advantage would be not so much giving you twice as much data to work with, as giving respondents the ability to express their actual experiences. If someone tried something and it worked really well but they soon gave up on it, they may be reluctant to give it either a very high or a very low score, but you might want to treat it as one or other of those.
Is it worth giving two scores, one for “how well it worked while I was doing it” and one for “how well it worked, taking into account whether I gave up using it”? My impression is that it’s quite common for an anti-akrasia technique to work well right up to the point where one becomes akratic about actually using it.
I think that both of those could make sense, but I’m not sure how I’d go about aggregating the scores from that. I would probably use the second one.
The advantage would be not so much giving you twice as much data to work with, as giving respondents the ability to express their actual experiences. If someone tried something and it worked really well but they soon gave up on it, they may be reluctant to give it either a very high or a very low score, but you might want to treat it as one or other of those.