{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02178217821782178, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005280528052805281, 'mean_word_length': 5.649122807017544, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Ten-year review of rating scales. III: scales assessing suicidality, cognitive style, and self-esteem.

OBJECTIVE
This is the third article in a series of 10-year reviews of rating scales. Here, the authors review scales that are useful in tapping the affective disturbances experienced with various psychiatric disorders, including suicidality, cognitive style, and self-esteem.


METHOD
The authors sampled articles incorporating these constructs over the past 25 years and selected scales with established uses or new development. Those presented here have adequate psychometric properties and high utility for efficiently elucidating youths' functioning, plus either wide literature citations or a special niche.


RESULTS
These scales were developed bimodally. Many were developed in the 1980s when internalizing disorders were elucidated, but there has been a resurgence of interest in these constructs. Scales assessing suicidality have clear constructs, whereas scales of cognitive style demonstrate deficits in developmental relevance, and scales of self-esteem suffer from lax constructs.


CONCLUSIONS
The constructs underlying these scales tap core symptoms of internalizing disorders, mediate the expression of affective disturbances associated with various disorders, and depict the impairments resulting from these disorders. Overall, the psychometrics of these scales are adequate. These scales provide a broader representation of youths' functioning than that conveyed with diagnostic scales alone.