Objectives: The aim of this review was to explore how nurse education prepares students to participate in the peer review process and to deal with the benefits and challenges of giving and receiving peer feedback.
Design: Whittemore and Knafl's (2005) five-step strategy for integrated literature reviews served as a framework for this analysis.
Data sources: Relevant online university databases (CINAHL, ERIC, Medline, etc.) were searched using a combination of keywords, yielding 24 studies from peer-reviewed journals between 1988 and 2018 that fit inclusion criteria after initial screening.
Review methods: Data were organized in a summary table by author, year, title, country, methodology, student level, sample size, and setting. Qualitative data analysis software facilitated identification of themes and systematic coding of content. The data were compared across the didactic, clinical, and laboratory settings and then analyzed and synthesized globally for general conclusions.
Results: The predominant themes that emerged were benefits and challenges of peer assessment in nurse education, strategies to prepare students to provide supportive feedback, anonymous vs. non-anonymous peer assessment practices, and recommendations for instructional strategies related to peer assessment.
Conclusions: Peer assessment provides multiple sources of feedback, guides students to think critically about course content, and engages them in advanced self-assessment. However, if students are not well prepared to participate in peer assessment, it can lead to a sense of incompetence, anxiety, and a hostile learning environment. Well-designed peer assessment is an important instructional strategy to prepare future nurses to participate in peer review in professional nursing practice.
Keywords: Communication barriers; Feedback; Integrative literature review; Interpersonal skills; Nurse education; Peer review; Student performance appraisal.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
MacKinnon K, Marcellus L, Rivers J, Gordon C, Ryan M, Butcher D. MacKinnon K, et al. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):14-26. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1694. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015. PMID: 26447004
Hakkarainen T, Salminen L, Alastalo M, Virtanen H. Hakkarainen T, et al. Nurse Educ Today. 2024 May;136:106148. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106148. Epub 2024 Feb 29. Nurse Educ Today. 2024. PMID: 38442641 Review.
Steinert Y, Naismith L, Mann K. Steinert Y, et al. Med Teach. 2012;34(6):483-503. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.680937. Med Teach. 2012. PMID: 22578043 Review.
Newton L, Pront L, Giles TM. Newton L, et al. J Clin Nurs. 2016 Jun;25(11-12):1486-500. doi: 10.1111/jocn.13127. Epub 2016 Jan 29. J Clin Nurs. 2016. PMID: 26821775 Review.
Oh J, Kang J, De Gagne JC. Oh J, et al. Nurse Educ Today. 2012 Nov;32(8):914-9. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2012.03.021. Epub 2012 May 2. Nurse Educ Today. 2012. PMID: 22554554 Review.
Holfert J, Kesting MR, Buchbender M. Holfert J, et al. J Dent Educ. 2022 Feb;86(2):154-160. doi: 10.1002/jdd.12790. Epub 2021 Sep 20. J Dent Educ. 2022. PMID: 34542905 Free PMC article.
Mehdipour-Rabori R, Nematollahi M, Bagherian B. Mehdipour-Rabori R, et al. J Educ Health Promot. 2021 Feb 27;10:58. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_761_20. eCollection 2021. J Educ Health Promot. 2021. PMID: 34084805 Free PMC article.
Stenberg M, Mangrio E, Bengtsson M, Carlson E. Stenberg M, et al. BMJ Open. 2021 Feb 9;11(2):e045345. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045345. BMJ Open. 2021. PMID: 33563627 Free PMC article. Review.
Radder DLM, Lennaerts HH, Vermeulen H, van Asseldonk T, Delnooz CCS, Hagen RH, Munneke M, Bloem BR, de Vries NM. Radder DLM, et al. Trials. 2020 Jan 15;21(1):88. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3926-y. Trials. 2020. PMID: 31941538 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
Chen L, Chen H, Xu D, Yang Y, Li H, Hua D. Chen L, et al. J Int Med Res. 2019 Nov;47(11):5526-5535. doi: 10.1177/0300060519861025. Epub 2019 Sep 18. J Int Med Res. 2019. PMID: 31530204 Free PMC article.