Citation

Klonsky ED, May AM. Clin. Psychol. Sci. Pract. 2016; 23(1): 35-38.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2016, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/cpsp.12132

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

We read with interest the commentaries on our article "What Distinguishes Suicide Attempters From Suicide Ideators? A Meta-Analysis of Potential Factors" (2016). While two offered positive sentiments and useful elaborations, we focus here on the commentary by Nock, Kessler, and Franklin, which was decidedly negative. Nock et al. contains three main points. The second point is a thoughtful and substantive address of the inclusion criteria and limits of our meta-analysis. We are happy to reply to it, even if we do not fully agree. In contrast, Nock and colleagues' first point (which broadly questions the novelty of our ideas and credit given to past work) and third point (which suggests our article fails to appreciate the difference between correlates and risk factors) are plainly and disconcertingly inaccurate. These inaccuracies distort the content of our work, magnify areas of real and perceived disagreement, and hinder substantive discourse. Our reply (a) refutes and corrects these inaccuracies, (b) reaffirms the critical need to distinguish attempters from ideators, and (c) describes a framework for resolving this knowledge gap. © 2016 Society of Clinical Psychology.

Language: en

Keywords

Risk factors; human; Suicide; Review; Meta-analysis; Prediction; Ideation; risk factor; Attempt; Suicidal; meta analysis