Post-treatment distributions of TDC-values. These distributions are depicted at two occasions of treatment (Tx) evaluation and with different modes of addition of reference items. Arrow, the cut-off point TDC = −0.379 for distinguishing between a successful Tx (more negative TDC-values to the left) and an unsuccessful Tx (less negative values to the right). Total number of patients: 118. A-B, the evolution of the TDC-distribution from the short-term to the long-term, post-Tx; possibly added reference items from solely the assessor were included in the TDC-values. A, TDC-distribution at EM (‘end measurement’, cf. Figure 2). B, ultimate TDC-distribution at LM (‘last measurement’). Note that the TDC-distribution became bimodal at LM. C-D, TDC-distributions at LM, with two other modes of addition of reference items: (1) items both from the clinician and subsequently the assessor (C), and (2) no addition (D). Note that, regardless of the way of addition, the three TDC-distributions at LM were bimodal (B, C- D) and that these distributions were similar. Black bars, patients (3.4-7.6%) whose treatments were successful according to the sole criterion of TDC ≤ −0.379, but unsuccessful according to the ‘discrepancy rule’ (see text, section ‘treatment procedure’). See Table 4 for the success rate at various times of treatment evaluation and various modes of addition of reference items, including the effect of application of the discrepancy rule. Occasions of evaluation and modes of addition in this figure (A-D) corresponds with EM, s-A / LM, s-A / LM, c-A and LM, NA respectively in Table 4.