In this article attention is paid to normative aspects in the evaluation of effects of clinical psychotherapy. In addition to the necessity of selecting convincing criteria, an urgent need is felt for plausible norms that can help to evaluate therapy-effect in a meaningful way.

In this study an attempt is made to apply norms that were obtained from experts in clinical psychotherapy to follow-up assessments of persons who terminated clinical psychotherapy three years ago. Our data not only reveal a remarkable consensus among experts as far as their `bottom norms' for satisfactory therapy results are concerned but they offer eye-opening - but slightly disappointing - points of view on the present state of former patients as well no more than ± 50% of them meet the expert-standards.

Experts prove to enhance higher standards as far as the minimally required level of Well-being, Problem-solving ability and Interpersonal Problems are concerned than standards, based upon statistical assumptions would give lead to. Experts prove to demand more than moderate score-levels on the variables used as far as their appreciation of moderate satisfactory therapy-results is concerned.

In this respect it might be of interest to note that there proved to be no significant differences between the standard-levels hold by experts from clinics for psychotic patients in comparison of those from clinics for neurotic patients, which did not meet our expectations. Special attention is paid to the fact that the data reveal the existence of a group of patients, that meet with the 3 year-post-treatment-expert-standard even on admittance in the clinic and to whom the lable `the worried well' might be applicable as they prove to be over-represented in the group that meets with expert standards 3 years after discharge as well.