Jump to contentJump to search

360° Peer-Feedback

The basic idea of the questionnaire-based 360° peer feedback is that you as students give each other feedback on specific observable behaviors or topics. After all, you can assess certain things among yourselves much better than a lecturer can, who may only experience you once in a seminar.

Giving feedback is not about giving the other person feedback about how he or she "is", which is simply not possible, but about giving feedback about how you perceive or experience this person.

Feedback is always subjective!
For yourself, you learn how your behavior is perceived, understood and experienced by others. The feedback about how other people perceive someone can agree with your own perception or deviate from it. From this you can - if you get involved and reflect - draw benefit for your personal development.

The prerequisite for helpful and successful feedback is mutual appreciation between all participants and, above all, constructive criticism.

With your participation you will learn more about yourself and your competencies also in terms of medical skills. It is about conscious and unconscious personality and behavioral characteristics between the self and a group. The blind spot in everyone's self-image should be made accessible to you through the project.

In addition, you can use your opportunity to influence the implementation of peer feedback in the new curriculum through targeted influence, e.g. in interviews.

You also have the opportunity to collect points for the "Physician Competencies" certificate. This requires complete participation in the feedback (completion of potential pre-questionnaires, self-assessment for yourself, peer assessments for all group members, and evaluation).

As a participant, you give feedback to each other within your group once a semester using an electronic questionnaire. In this way, you give your fellow students indirect feedback, i.e. you give your assessment online and remain anonymous. The reason for this procedure in 360° Feedback is to give and receive as honest assessments as possible. There is the possibility to give free text comments which can be especially helpful for your fellow student if you formulate them in an appreciative and constructive way.

The time required for your self-assessment and the feedback to all group members is about 1-1.5 hours in total per semester. Afterwards, you will be provided with the assessments of your fellow students. This will provide you with your own personal result. You will have the opportunity to discuss this in a personal consultation. All personal data will of course be treated confidentially and will definitely not be connected with the acquisition of a certificate or any examination results!

If your group or individual members do not want to participate in the feedback, a cancellation via email to Ms. Raski is required! Otherwise, we will assume that your group will automatically participate. The assessment will take place in the middle of the semester so that you have enough time to prepare for the exam.

If you do not unsubscribe from 360° Feedback, you will automatically receive an email with access to the online feedback capture. In the online recording, you will only find the options for self-assessment as well as the option to assess the members of your small group.

All data is collected completely anonymously. The emails are generated automatically. An assignment of email addresses or other personal data to the completed questionnaires is not possible at any time. It is only possible to see whether a participant has evaluated, but not how the questionnaire was filled out.

General information
You will receive an overview of how fellow students rate their relationship with you, the quality of contacts they have together, and how well they know you. In addition, you will also find some information about the gender composition of the fellow students who gave you feedback.

Questions for external assessment
In this section you will find the feedback on the individual questions of the external assessment in different presentations:

  • as an overview
  • as a histogram
  • as a profile line.

In the overview, the contents of the individual items are shown once again on the left side. Please note the polarity of the scales.
In the histogram display, the information about the items is abbreviated. For better orientation, you can see the exact item text again in the overview.

The profile line refers exclusively to the mean values of the assessments. To compare these values with your self-assessment, it is best to simply place both profile lines next to each other. Please note that there are different numbers of questions in the self-assessment and the external assessment. When placing them next to each other, make sure that you also compare the same questions.

Comments from fellow students
If your fellow students have made comments on the individual items, you will find these in a list at the end of the evaluation file. Next to it is the respective item number to which the comment refers. If you do not find a list here, no separate comment was made for you.

It is possible that you will also receive unexpected feedback from your fellow students. You can of course discuss this with them, even if it is no longer possible to trace who gave which feedback.

If you feel burdened by the feedback, Ms. Raski is also available for a personal discussion.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Raski via e-mail.


Based on feedback from my fellow students, I would like to change the following behavior:

  • Drop my reticence in the group.
  • Stop communicating "too directly" with the patient and participate more in class.
  • Be even more careful to avoid technical words when talking to patients.
  • Have more confidence in myself.
  • No longer be shy, have more confidence. The others have encouraged me in this. Thank you very much for that.
  • Unfortunately, my fellow students didn't use the free text boxes and otherwise tended to give positive feedback, so I didn't get any specific critique to work on.
  • There might need to be more emphasis on the fact that the free text comments are much more helpful than the grades. I put a lot of effort into each student and wrote something for almost every question, but only received one comment in total myself.
  • It would be nice to again clearly demonstrate to students the potential of the remark fields.

General statements:

  • Thank you very much for the possibility of peer feedback! It is a very good idea not only to feedback the lecturers, but also fellow students and especially oneself!
  • Unfortunately, this system is very dependent on how seriously students take it and how much effort they put in.
  • LEAVE THE NONSENSE! It doesn't help anyone! COSTS ONLY TIME... nobody evaluates it honestly and correctly! No sense!
  • omit. so far everyone has been happy too.
  • It would be nice if students actually used the free text fields. Concrete criticism is the most likely to get something done. Crosses are set quickly and tempt to not really take the feedback seriously, but only to work through it quickly. Maybe you can even make free text fields exclusively?
  • Friends always evaluate friends well, those you don't like you evaluate badly... It's mostly just sympathy and has nothing to do with ability.
  • ...It would be presumptuous to believe that one could do justice to one's fellow students. Remarkable: here, too, most of them always voted as neutrally and opportunistically as possible. - Gain of knowledge equal to zero.
  • It is a pity that the students hardly or not at all used the remark fields. It is through these fields that recognition and change of competencies, behaviors and ways of thinking is possible in the first place.
  • More questions, also more detailed. In addition, every semester a feedback, by unfavorable module group constellation no reasonable evaluation possible.
  • Great thing, just keep it that way!


  • Drever, J. & Fröhlich, W.D. (1971). Dictionary of psychology (5th ed.). Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.
  • Konradt, B. (1999). On the relationship between impulsivity and rigidity. Unpublished manuscript, University of Bonn.
  • Krampen, G. (1977). TBR-FR - behavioral rigidity questionnaire. Trier: University, Department I - Psychology.
  • Krampen, G. (1977). TBR behavioral rigidity questionnaire. German translation, reliability, validity, revised version. Trier: University, Department I - Psychology.
  • Rokeach, M. & Fruchter, B. (1956). A factorial study of dogmatism and related concepts. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 356-360.
  • Schaie, K.W. & Parham, I.A. (1975). Manual for the Test of Behavioral Rigidity. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  • Schaie, K.W., Dutta, R. & Willis, S.L.. (1991). Relationship Between Rigidity- Flexibility and Cognitive Abilities in Adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 6, 371-383.
  • Ullrich, R., Ullrich de Muynck, R. & Brengelmann, J.C. (1978). Item and factor analysis of a questionnaire to assess rigidity in the performance domain in performance disordered patients. In: R. Ullrich & R. Ullrich de Muynck (Eds.), Social competence. Experimental results on the assertiveness training program ATP, (Vol. 1), Munich: Pfeiffer, pp. 239-262.
  • Wulfert, E., Greenway, D.E., Farkas, P., Hayes, S. & Dougher, M.J. (1994). Correlation between self-reported rigidity and rule-governed insensitivity to operant contingencies. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 27, 659-671.
Responsible for the content: