Three of the easiest responses to make to the article itself, of course, apart from the "general issue", are:
(i) the primary thrust of the article is at attempts (are there any?!) to mount a public health screening program based solely on the use of the original ACEs Questionnaire, in and of itself, by itself. A criticism not so much of the ACEs Screen -- but of a population-focused ACEs Screening Program
(ii) the article is critical of the use of the ACEs Q in practice, especially in isolation from other measures -- in whatever setting it's used as a screening instrument, when other measures might be more reliable.
(iii) some people might react badly to being asked the ACEs Qs and this might negatively influence any relationship between treatment provider and patient/client.
Given the emphasis I have used you can guess (some of) my counter-arguments, but is anyone planning a response to the article? Preferably in an academic journal -- hopefully in the same journal or, ideally, someplace else, where it can be published more quickly.
(my "off-the-cuff" response was to mention just the first of these, but the number of criticisms I could make of the article just increased too rapidly -- "Does he fundamentally mis-understand the nature of screening measures?! ... a sensitive, yet not specific, record of signs of potential need for more in-depth inquiry / assessment" being yet another, of no doubt several more).
Incidentally, further to the points above:
(i) Has anyone really suggested this?
(ii) Especially here on this forum, is anyone encouraged to use the Q by itself? What are these other more reliable measures, or is research yet to show these? What safeguards are people already being encouraged to put in place with the use of this screen? With the use of the Resilience Q, are there not already cost-efficient "therapeutic procedures" that can be built into the use of these brief methods?
(iii) Sure, some might, but many more might have such relationships improved by their being asked such questions, if their responses were heeded, and responded to effectively. A comparison is drawn to measures of cigarette, alcohol, and other drugs, use, without any suggestion that the use of these measures might not / does not, for some people, risk / actually damage actual / potential relationships with treatment providers. Let me assure you, they might, they do, and they have, for some people. Are we not therefore wiser and better prepared to identify and limit any negative consequences possibly accruing from their use?