Second, Dr. Amos questions the finding that while there apparently were no differences in work function at the 5-year follow-up, the early-detection patients had double the chance of full-time employment at 10 years. He goes on to imply that we might have chosen a new measure of “recovery” out of convenience, having made sure that this measure would yield us more favorable results. At 5 years, we used “working at least 20 hours per week” as the employment outcome (2). At the 10-year follow-up, using a new measure of recovery chosen before data collection and on the basis of recent developments in the field, we looked only at full-time employment. This is a stricter measure and was significantly higher for early detection patients. However, nonrecovered patients had poor working capacity both in early and usual-detection areas, both at 5 and 10 years.