Coaching psychology in higher education: A scoping review

Higher education settings are increasingly adopting a coaching approach to enhance student and staff growth and development, as an alternative to training and mentoring. Coaching involves using developmental conversations to unlock an individual's or group's potential and increase their problem‐solving capability. This scoping review examines the application of coaching psychology within international higher education settings, focusing on staff and student populations. A systematic search of databases covering the period from 2000 to 2025 identified 22 relevant studies. This review highlights considerable variation in methodologies, including the length of interventions and the number of coaching sessions offered to participants. Theoretical frameworks and models are reviewed; Cognitive Behavioural Coaching and Academic Coaching are shown to be the most frequently used theoretical approaches. Twenty‐five measures were used to assess coaching intervention outcomes. The most frequently used outcomes were academic grades, measures of perceived stress and measures of learning and studying. This review calls for key criteria to be reported on in higher education coaching psychology interventions. Reporting these key criteria will strengthen the credibility of coaching psychology in higher education by supporting transparent and replicable intervention design. Context and implications Rationale for this study: Universities are increasingly using coaching interventions to support the development of staff and students. This review maps these interventions in higher education. Why the new findings matter: This mixed‐methods scoping review integrates international evidence from a fragmented literature base to provide a comprehensive understanding of coaching psychology interventions across higher education. Implications for researchers and practitioners: The growing use of randomised controlled trials and standardised measures suggests coaching psychology is maturing; however, clearer and more consistent reporting is needed to improve transparency and reproducibility. Practitioners should continue to adopt evidence‐based approaches, with coaching psychology provision beyond undergraduate students. The limited focus on postgraduate students (including doctoral students) and staff indicates a need to expand coaching provision across these underrepresented groups. For researchers, gaps highlight priorities for greater diversity of populations, developing longitudinal designs and thorough reporting of coaching psychology interventions to strengthen the field's coherence and application.