Id. These are appropriate considerations. See, e.g., Ash v. Astrue, No. 2:10CV00043 AGF, 2011 WL 2936348, at *12 (E.D. Mo. July 19, 2011) (third-party witnesses not medically trained); Ivy v. Colvin, No. 13-5186, 2014 WL 4062889, at *5 (W.D. Ark. Aug. 18, 2014) (wife not a disinterested third-party witness). The ALJ also noted that the lay testimony was "not consistent with the preponderance of the opinions, observations by mental health professionals, mental status examinations, response to treatment or the claimant's work history in this case."