Dr. Carroll questions our data analysis, stating that we should have removed four data points in our regression analysis. It is troublesome to label 10% of the study group as "deviant." Moreover, by visual inspection, why the four points below the fitted line, rather than the three above, with the longest days of untreated depression were considered "deviant" by Dr. Carroll is not clear. We agree that 38 is a small group size. However, we point out that this size is large enough to have 80% power to detect a correlation coefficient of 0.42 with a two-tailed 5% significance test. The product moment correlation coefficient is relatively robust to deviations from normal distributions but sensitive to nonlinear association and unequal variances around the line (5), neither of which is evident here. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, which is not affected by outliers, again demonstrates the robustness of our findings (rs=–0.48, df=36, p=0.003). Furthermore, it is not appropriate to arbitrarily dichotomize outcomes for the purposes of analysis. It is well known that there is a consequent loss of power (6). Thus, Dr. Carroll’s post hoc analysis of our chi-square test data and the finding that it was not significant may reflect his use of an inadequately powered test rather than suggesting a change in our conclusion.