Debriefing clinical simulation experiences is increasingly understood as a crucial step in clarifying and consolidating insights and lessons from simulations. The Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH) is designed to assist in evaluating and developing debriefing skills. Debriefing is a conversation among two or more people to review a simulated event or activity in which participants explore, analyze and synthesize their actions and thought processes, emotional states and other information to improve performance in real situations. High participant engagement is a hallmark of strong debriefings because it leads to deeper levels of learning and increases the likelihood of transfer to the clinical setting.

The DASH evaluates the strategies and techniques used to conduct debriefings by examining concrete behaviors. It is based on evidence and theory about how people learn and change in experiential contexts. The DASH is designed to allow assessment of debriefings from a variety of disciplines and courses, varying numbers of participants, a wide range of educational objectives, and various physical and time constraints.

The DASH Rater Version is useful in a variety of debriefing settings and as a faculty development tool to provide a debriefer with summative or formative feedback.

To download the DASH, please enter your name and email below:

The DASH is based on an extensive literature review as well as best debriefing practices derived from an expert panel. A bibliography of the literature on which it is based is available here:

Download DASH Bibliography

DASH Instrument

Brett-Fleegler M, Rudolph J, Eppich W, Monuteaux, M., Fleegler, E., Cheng, A., Simon, R. Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare: Development and Psychometric Properties. Simul Healthc. 2012 Oct; 7 (5): 288-94. PMID: 22902606.

“This article describes the development and then reviews the psychometric properties of the DASH. The primary objective was to address 2 aspects of reliability: interrater reliability and internal consistency. The secondary objective was to examine the DASH scores for evidence of validity. Interrater reliability refers to consistency in ratings among different raters. Another aspect of reliability, internal consistency, is a statistic that indicates the extent to which the items of a test measure the same trait, knowledge, or ability. Validity “refers to the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores entailed by proposed uses of tests.” (American Educational Research Association [AERA] et al., 1999). The DASH’s validity will be supported by (1) detailing the development process and the origins of its content and (2) showing data that demonstrate the DASH’s ability to discriminate between varying levels of debriefing performance in an expected manner.” (Brett-Fleegler et al., 2012, p. 289).

American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: AERA; 1999. Retrieved from http://www.aera.net/Publications/Books/Standards-1999-Ed.

Interrater reliability is covered in our 4 hour online DASH Rater Training workshop.

DASH Student Version

Dreifuerst KT. Using debriefing for meaningful learning to foster development of clinical reasoning in simulation. J Nurs Educ. 2012 Jun; 51(6): 326-33. PMID: 22495923.

“For content and construct validity, items for the DASH–SV have been reviewed by the developers of the DASH (D. Raemer, personal communication, June 12, 2009). Initial reliability of the DASH-SV was established during this study, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was determined to be 0.82 (N = 6, M = 29.537, variance = 24.259, SD = 4.925), indicating very good reliability.” (Dreifuerst, 2012, p. 330).

There are three versions of the DASH:

• DASH Rater Version – designed for trained raters to rate instructors
• DASH Student Version – designed or students to rate their instructors
• DASH Instructor Version – designed for instructors to rate themselves

DASH Copyright Notice

All versions of the DASH instrument are copyrighted.
© Center for Medical Simulation, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America, https://harvardmedsim.org.

Permission to Use

Permission is granted for you to use the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH)© instrument in your simulation program. As a condition of granting permission to use the DASH©, we request that you provide CMS copies of articles, abstracts or reports you publish using the DASH so that we may keep others up to date on how the DASH is being used.

Email DASH Publication

Questions or to request specific permission to use the DASH:
Contact Us

How to Cite the DASH Rater Handbook

Simon R, Raemer DB, Rudolph JW. 2010. Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH)© Rater’s Handbook. Center for Medical Simulation, Boston, Massachusetts. https://harvardmedsim.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/DASH.handbook.2010.Final.Rev.2.pdf. English, French, German, Japanese, Spanish, Portuguese, Korean.

How to Cite the DASH Score Sheet – Rater Versions

Simon R, Raemer DB, Rudolph JW. 2018. Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH)© – Rater Version, Long Form. Center for Medical Simulation, Boston, Massachusetts. https://harvardmedsim.org/dash-rv-long-scoresheet-en-2018/. English, French, German, Japanese, Spanish.

Simon R, Raemer DB, Rudolph JW. 2011. Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH)© – Rater Version, Short Form. Center for Medical Simulation, Boston, Massachusetts. https://harvardmedsim.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/DASH.RV.ShortScoresheet.2011.pdf. English, French, German, Japanese, Spanish, Chinese, Portuguese, Korean.

How to Cite the DASH Score Sheet – Student Versions

Simon R, Raemer DB, Rudolph JW. 2010. Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH)© – Student Version, Long Form. Center for Medical Simulation, Boston, Massachusetts. https://harvardmedsim.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/DASH.SV.Long.2010.Final.pdf. English, French, Japanese, Spanish, Chinese, Korean.

Simon R, Raemer DB, Rudolph JW. 2010. Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH)© – Student Version, Short Form. Center for Medical Simulation, Boston, Massachusetts. https://harvardmedsim.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/DASH.SV.Short.2010.Final.pdf. English, French, German, Japanese, Spanish, Chinese, Portuguese, Korean.

How to Cite the DASH Score Sheet – Instructor Versions

Simon R, Raemer DB, Rudolph JW. 2012. Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH)© – Instructor Version, Long Form. Center for Medical Simulation, Boston, Massachusetts. https://harvardmedsim.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/DASH.IV.LongForm.2012.05.pdf. English, French, Japanese, Spanish, Chinese, Korean.

Simon R, Raemer DB, Rudolph JW. 2012. Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH)© – Instructor Version, Short Form. Center for Medical Simulation, Boston, Massachusetts. https://harvardmedsim.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/DASH.IV.ShortForm.2012.05.pdf. English, French, German, Japanese, Spanish, Chinese, Portuguese, Korean.

Dreifuerst KT. Using debriefing for meaningful learning to foster development of clinical reasoning in simulation. J Nurs Educ. 2012 Jun; 51(6): 326-33. PMID: 22495923.

Brett-Fleegler M, Rudolph J, Eppich W, Monuteaux, M., Fleegler, E., Cheng, A., Simon, R. Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare: Development and Psychometric Properties. Simul Healthc. 2012 Oct; 7 (5): 288-94. PMID: 22902606.

Morse, Catherine J. “The Effect of Debriefing with Good Judgment on Acute Care Nurse Practitioner Students’ Reflective Ability and Perspective Transformation.” [Doctoral dissertation]. Villanova, Pennsylvania: Villanova University, 2012. Retrieved from http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/pubnum/3552408.html.

Kolbe M, Weiss M, Grote G, Knauth A, Dambach M, Spahn DR, Grande B. TeamGAINS: a tool for structured debriefings for simulation-based team trainings. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Jul;22(7):541-53. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000917. Epub 2013 Mar 22. PMID: 23525093.

Cooper DD, Wilson AB, Huffman GN, Humbert AJ. Medical students’ perception of residents as teachers: comparing effectiveness of residents and faculty during simulation debriefings. J Grad Med Educ. 2012 Dec;4(4):486-9. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-11-00269.1. PMID: 24294426 . (2014) Erratum: J Grad Med Educ. 2014 March, 6(1):192. https://doi.org/10.4300/1949-8357-6.1.192.

Rudolph J, Raemer D, Simon R. Establishing a safe container for learning in simulation: The role of the pre-simulation briefing. Simul Healthc. 2014 Dec;9(6):339-49. PMID: 25188485.

Jeffries, P. R., Dreifuerst, K. T., Kardong-Edgren, S., & Hayden, J. Faculty Development When Initiating Simulation Programs: Lessons Learned From the National Simulation Study. J Nurs Regul. 2015 Jan; 5(4): 17-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2155-8256(15)30037-5.

Policard, F. Optimiser le débriefing d’une séance de simulation en santé. SOiNS CADRES. 2015 May; 24 (94): 51-54. [in French] Retrieved from: http://www.em-consulte.com/article/973285/article/optimiser-le-debriefing-d-une-seance-de-simulation.

Aluisio AR, Daniel P, Grock A, Freedman J, Singh A, Papanagnou D, Arquilla B. Case-based Learning Outperformed Simulation Exercises in Disaster Preparedness Education Among Nursing Trainees in India: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016 Oct;31(5):516-23. PMID: 27491847.

Ahmed RA, Atkinson SS, Gable B, Yee J, Gardner AK. Coaching From the Sidelines: Examining the Impact of Teledebriefing in Simulation-Based Training. Simul Healthc. 2016 Oct;11(5):334-339. PMID: 27388866.

Evain JN, Zoric L, Mattatia L, Picard O, Ripart J, Cuvillon P. Residual anxiety after high fidelity simulation in anaesthesiology: An observational, prospective, pilot study. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2017 Aug;36(4):205-212. PMID: 27867134.

Bullard MJ, Leuck JA, Howley LD. Unifying interdisciplinary education: designing and implementing an intern simulation educational curriculum to increase confidence in critical care from PGY1 to PGY2. BMC Res Notes. 2017 Nov 6;10(1):563. PMID: 29110695.

Adams T, Newton C, Patel H, Sulistio M, Tomlinson A, Lee W. Resident versus faculty member simulation debriefing. Clin Teach. 2017 Nov 16. PMID: 29144023.

Durand C, Secheresse T, Leconte M. The use of the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH) in a simulation-based team learning program for newborn resuscitation in the delivery room. Arch Pediatr. 2017 Dec;24(12):1197-1204. [in French]. PMID: 29174008.

Roh YS, Jang KI. Survey of factors influencing learner engagement with simulation debriefing among nursing students. Nurs Health Sci. 2017 Dec;19(4):485-491. doi: 10.1111/nhs.12371. Epub 2017 Aug 29. PMID: 28851087.

Gordon RM. Debriefing Virtual Simulation Using an Online Conferencing Platform: Lessons Learned. Clin Simul Nurs. 2017 Dec; 13(12): 668-674. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2017.08.003.

Poland S, Frey JA, Khobrani A, Ondrejka JE, Ruhlin MU, George RL, Gothard MD, Ahmed RA. Telepresent Focused Assessment With Sonography for Trauma Examination Training Versus Traditional Training for Medical Students: A Simulation-Based Pilot Study. J Ultrasound Med. 2018 Feb 1. PMID: 29388234.

Kang K, Yu M. Comparison of student self-debriefing versus instructor debriefing in nursing simulation: A quasi-experimental study. Nurse Educ Today. 2018 Jun;65:67-73. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2018.02.030. Epub 2018 Mar 2. PMID: 29533836.

Doherty-Restrepo J, Odai M, Harris M, Yam T, Potteiger K, Montalvo A. Students’ Perception of Peer and Faculty Debriefing Facilitators Following Simulation- Based Education. J Allied Health. 2018 Summer;47(2):107-112. PMID: 29868695.

Brown DK, Wong AH, Ahmed RA. Evaluation of simulation debriefing methods with interprofessional learning. Interprof Care. 2018 Jul 19:1-3. doi: 10.1080/13561820.2018.1500451. PMID: 30024297.

Ciullo A, Yee J, Frey JA, Gothard MD, Benner A, Hammond J, Ballas D, Ahmed RA. Telepresent mechanical ventilation training versus traditional instruction: a simulation-based pilot study. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn. 2018 Nov 29;5(1):8-14. doi: 10.1136/bmjstel-2017-000254. PMID: 35517909; PMCID: PMC8936854.

Adams T, Newton C, Patel H, Sulistio M, Tomlinson A, Lee W. Resident versus faculty member simulation debriefing. Clin Teach. 2018 December; 15(6): 462–466. PMID: 29144023.

Kim SS, De Gagne JC. Instructor-led vs. peer-led debriefing in preoperative care simulation using standardized patients. Nurse Educ Today. 2018 Dec;71:34-39. PMID: 30218850.

Jeffers JM, Poling S. The development and implementation of a 12-month simulation-based learning curriculum for pediatric emergency medicine fellows utilizing debriefing with good judgment and rapid cycle deliberate practice. BMC Med Educ. 2019 Jan 15;19(1):22. doi: 10.1186/s12909-018-1417-6. PMID: 30646903.

Alcaraz-Mateos E, Jiang XS, Mohammed AAR, Turic I, Hernández-Sabater L, Caballero-Alemán F, Párraga-Ramírez MJ, Poblet E. A novel simulator model and standardized assessment tools for fine needle aspiration cytology training. Diagn Cytopathol. 2019 Apr;47(4):297-301. doi: 10.1002/dc.24105. Epub 2018 Nov 25. PMID: 30474299.

Tanoubi I, Labben I, Guédira S, Drolet P, Perron R, Robitaille A, Géorgescu M. The impact of a high fidelity simulation-based debriefing course on the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH)© score of novice instructors. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2019 Oct;7(4):159-164. doi: 10.30476/JAMP.2019.74583.0

Houzé-Cerfon CH, Boet S, Saint-Jean M, Cros J, Vardon-Bounes F, Marhar F, Couarraze S, Der Sahakian G, Mattatia L, Nicolle L, Balen F, Charpentier S, Bounes V, Geeraerts T. Effect of combined individual-collective debriefing of participants in interprofessional simulation courses on crisis resource management: a randomized controlled multicenter trial. Emergencias. 2020 Abr;32(2):111-117. English, Spanish. PMID: 32125110.

Raney JH, Medvedev MM, Cohen SR, Spindler H, Ghosh R, Christmas A, Das A, Gore A, Mahapatra T, Walker D. Training and evaluating simulation debriefers in low-resource settings: lessons learned from Bihar, India. BMC Med Educ. 2020 Jan 8;20(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1906-2. PMID: 31914989; PMCID: PMC6951007.

Wiggins LL, Sarasnick J, Siemens NG. Using Simulation to Train Medical Units for Deployment. Mil Med. 2020 Mar 2;185(3-4):341-345. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usz427. PMID: 31868911.

Zhang H, Wang W, Goh SHL, Wu XV, Mörelius E. The impact of a three-phase video-assisted debriefing on nursing students’ debriefing experiences, perceived stress and facilitators’ practices: A mixed methods study. Nurse Educ Today. 2020 May 1;90:104460. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104460. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 32408245.

Muller-Botti S, Maestre JM, del Moral I, Fey M; Simon R. Linguistic Validation of the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare in Spanish and Cultural Validation for 8 Spanish Speaking Countries. Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare 2020 Jun 11; Volume Publish Ahead of Print – Issue – doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000468. PMID: 32541578.

Zargham S, Hanson A, Laniewicz M, Sandquist M, Kessler DO, Gilbert GE, Calhoun AW. Psychometric Testing of the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare (DASH) for Trainee-led, In Situ Simulations in the Pediatric Emergency Department Context. AEM Educ Train. 2020 Jun 17;5(2):e10482. doi: 10.1002/aet2.10482. PMID: 33842804; PMCID: PMC8019148.

Coggins A, Marchant D, Bartels J, Cliff B, Warburton S, Murphy M, Mitra T, Ryan CJ. Simulation-based medical education can be used to improve the mental health competency of emergency physicians. Australas Psychiatry. 2020 Jun;28(3):354-358. doi: 10.1177/1039856220901480. Epub 2020 Feb 24. PMID: 32093504.

Gross IT, Whitfill T, Auzina L, Auerbach M, Balmaks R. Telementoring for remote simulation instructor training and faculty development using telesimulation. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn. 2020 May 18;7(2):61-65. doi: 10.1136/bmjstel-2019-000512. PMID: 35520375; PMCID: PMC8936763.

Roncallo HR, Ray JM, Kulacz RC, Yang TJ, Chmura C, Evans LV, Wong AH. An Interprofessional Simulation-Based Orientation Program for Transitioning Novice Nurses to Critical Care Roles in the Emergency Department: Pilot Implementation and Evaluation. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2020 Nov;46(11):640-649. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2020.08.005. Epub 2020 Aug 16. PMID: 32919910; PMCID: PMC7606488.

Anderson, M., Díaz, D.A., Talbert, S., Gonzalez, L., Spears, S., Keiffer, M., Guido-Sanz, F., Mills, H., Hill., P., & Welch, G. (2021). Exploration of a capture and analysis system to identify what a good debriefer looks like. Abstracts Presented at the 21st Annual International Meeting on Simulation in Healthcare, January 19–March 31, 2021, Simulation in Healthcare, 16(3), e61. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000588

Glatts L, Clark N, Clarke S, Fukuyama K. Student Perspectives of Interprofessional Group Debriefing: Use of the National League for Nursing Guide for Teaching Thinking. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2021 Jan/Feb 01;42(1):36-38. doi: 10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000617. PMID: 31851137.

Rueda-Medina B, Schmidt-RíoValle J, González-Jiménez E, Fernández-Aparicio Á, Encarnación Aguilar-Ferrándiz M, Correa-Rodríguez M. Peer Debriefing Versus Instructor-Led Debriefing for Nursing Simulation. J Nurs Educ. 2021 Feb 1;60(2):90-95. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20210120-06. PMID: 33528579.

Couto TB, Matos FM, de Toledo Rodovalho PD, Fey M, Simon, R, Muller-Botti S. Translation of the Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare in Portuguese and cross-cultural adaptation for Portugal and Brazil. Adv Simul. 6, 25 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-021-00175-z. PMID: 34233758.

Rojo E, Maestre JM, Piedra L, Esteban J, Sánchez B, Hoz V, Del Moral I. Entrenamiento de equipos interprofesionales con simulación in situ para mejorar la calidad de la reanimación cardiopulmonar [Interprofessional team training with in situ simulation to improve the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation]. J Healthc Qual Res. 2021 Nov 22:S2603-6479(21)00099-3. Spanish. doi: 10.1016/j.jhqr.2021.10.001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhqr.2021.10.001. PMID: 34824042.

Maestre JM, García-Camarero T, Veiga G, Holanda MS, Alonso H, Fradejas V, Piedra L, Rojo E. Guía práctica para el debriefing online: revisión exploratoria y análisis de cursos con simulación clínica a distancia [A practical guide to online debriefing: A scoping review and analysis of distance-based simulation programs]. Educación Médica. 2021 Nov-Dec; 22(6):330-339. doi: 10.1016/j.edumed.2021.07.002.

Olvera-Cortés HE, Hernández-Gutiérrez LS, Scherer-Castanedo E, Ramírez-Arias JD, Argueta Muñoz FD, Gutiérrez-Barreto SE. Who Can Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare? Different Perspectives on Teledebriefing Assessments, Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare: February 8, 2022 – Volume – Issue – doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000642.PMID: 35136006.

Coggins, A., Hong, S. S., Baliga, K., & Halamek, L. P. (2022). Immediate faculty feedback using debriefing timing data and conversational diagrams. Advances in simulation (London, England), 7(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-022-00203-6.PMID: 35256014.

Validated translations of the DASH are available in the following languages:

• German
• French
• Spanish
• Italian
• Portuguese
• Japanese
• Korean
• Chinese (Mandarin)
• Arabic

Translations for Arabic, Turkish, and Norwegian are in process.

The Center for Medical Simulation has received no outside funding for the DASH project. The project has been blessed with significant help, writing and translation assistance.

1. Thanks to Adam Cheng (PI) and the EXPRESS Project for the opportunity and the support to develop the DASH. Special thanks go to the reviewers: Vinay Nadkharni (University of Pennsylvania), Elizabeth Hunt (Johns Hopkins University), Adam Cheng (University of Calgary), Walter Eppich (Northwestern University), Marisa Brett-Fleegler (Harvard University), Monica Kleinman (Harvard University), Kristen Nelson (Johns Hopkins University), Akira Nishisaki (University of Pennsylvania).
2. Thanks to Kris Dreifurst (Indiana University) who propelled the effort toward developing the DASH Student Versions and ran the initial tryouts of the instrument.
3. Thanks to Adam Cheng (University of Calgary), Walter Eppich (Northwestern University), Dylan Bould (University of Ottawa), Tobias Everett (University of Toronto) and Ralph MacKinnon (University of Manchester) for leading the effort to adapt previous versions of the DASH to create the Instructor Version.
4. The DASH was translated into German by Benedict Sandmeyer (University of Munich) with contributions by Florian Hoffmann (University of Munich), Walter Eppich (Northwestern University), Marcus Rall (University Hospital Tuebingen) and Michaela Kolbe (ETH Zürich). We are grateful about suggestions for improving formulation and translation. These suggestions should be sent to Benedict Sandmeyer with a copy to CMS ([email protected]; [email protected]).
5. The DASH was translated into Japanese by Takanari Ikeyama (Aichi Children’s Health and Medical Center, Japan) in collaboration with Yuko Shiima (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia), Takashi Shiga (Tokyo Bay Urayasu/Ichikawa Medical Center, Japan), Satoshi Takeda (The Jikei University School of Medicine, Japan), Satoshi Dohi (Showa University, Japan) and Akira Nishisaki (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia). We are always grateful for suggestions on how to improve the translation. These suggestions should be sent to Takanari Ikeyama with a copy to CMS ([email protected]; [email protected]).
6. French translation by Florence Policard (IFSI Clermont-Ferrand, Université Paris X Nanterre). Reviewers: Robert Doureradjam & Dr. Georges Savoldelli (SIMULHUG, University Hospitals of Geneva), Dr. Morgan Jaffrelot (CESIM, University of Brest) and Dr. Maria Rudolph (Visiting Scholar, Center for Medical Simulation, Boston). We are always grateful for suggestions on how to improve the translation. These suggestions should be sent to Florence Policard with a copy to CMS ([email protected]; [email protected]).
7. Spanish translation by Sacha Müller-Botti (Hunter New England Simulation Centre, Newcastle, Australia). Reviewer: José María Maestre (Hospital virtual Valdecilla, Santander, España). We are always grateful for suggestions on how to improve the translation. These suggestions should be sent to Sacha Müller-Botti with a copy to CMS ([email protected]; [email protected]).
8. Portuguese translation by Thomaz Bittencourt Couto (Centro de Simulação Realística do Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein), Paula Dias de Toledo Rodovalho (Centro de Simulação Realística do Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein) and Francisco Maio Matos (Centro de Simulação Biomédica Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra). We are always grateful for suggestions on how to improve the translation. These suggestions should be sent to Thomaz Bittencourt Couto with a copy to CMS ([email protected]; [email protected]).
9. Korean translation by Seon Yoon Chung at University of Wisconsin Oshkosh and Bu Kyung Park at Kyungpook National University. We are always grateful for suggestions on how to improve the translation. These suggestions should be sent to Seon Yoon Chung with a copy to CMS ([email protected]; [email protected]).
10. Italian translation by Sonia Lomuscio and Greta Ghizzardi (Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale di Lodi, Italy), Michela Bernardini (Università del Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy), Andrea Antonio Luigi Mastroeni (Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Italy), Pier Luigi Ingrassia (Centro Professionale Sociosanitario Medico-Tecnico di Lugano, Switzerland). We are always grateful for suggestions on how to improve the translation. Such suggestions should be sent to Sonia Lomuscio and Greta Ghizzardi with a copy to the CMS ([email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]).