A scoping review of student peer evaluations in health professions education

Peer evaluation is widely used within collaborative learning environments in health professions education to develop teamwork, communication, and feedback skills. However, the terms peer evaluation, peer assessment, and peer feedback are often used interchangeably, and implementation and reporting practices vary considerably. This scoping review aimed to identify, define, and characterize the peer evaluation methods, instruments, and implementation practices used within collaborative learning environments in health professions education, and to map gaps in the literature. Following the frameworks of Arksey and O’Malley and Levac et al. and reporting in accordance with PRISMA-ScR, we searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL from inception through October 2025. Studies were eligible if published in English and described peer evaluation among students in health professions programs within a collaborative learning environment. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts. Data on terminology, instruments, implementation, and outcomes were extracted using a predefined codebook and summarized descriptively. Of 2,419 records identified, 79 studies (published 1972 to 2025) met inclusion criteria. Medicine was the predominant discipline (77.2%), and most studies were situated within team-based (30.4%) or problem-based (22.8%) learning, with only 10.1% involving interprofessional settings. Most studies used custom-developed instruments (60.8%) rather than established tools such as the Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (8.9%) or the Koles method (8.9%), and 83.5% referenced no explicit theoretical framework. Numerical rating scales were the dominant format (78.5%), often paired with narrative comments (65.8%). Peer evaluation was most often formative (49.4%), yet its purpose was unspecified in roughly one-third of studies, and key implementation details, including timing, anonymity, grading stakes, feedback visibility, and student training, were frequently underreported. Despite this variability, the constructs assessed converged on professionalism, communication, teamwork, and contribution. Peer evaluation in health professions education is not underused but under-specified. Inconsistent terminology, reliance on custom instruments, limited theoretical grounding, and incomplete reporting hinder comparison across studies. Rather than mandating a single instrument, the field would benefit from shared definitions, a common core of assessed constructs, and minimum reporting standards.