FOR EACH METHOD OF ASSESSMENT THREE VARIABLES WERE EXAMINED: VALIDITY, RELAIBILITY, AND USER REACTION. SIMPLE AND MULTIPLE CORRELATIONS WERE USED TO DESCRIBE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ASSESSMENTS MADE BY FELLOW OFFICERS AND RANKING AND RATINGS MADE BY SERGEANTS AND FIVE OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE INDICES. A TOTAL OF 126 POLICE OFFICERS AND 19 CORPORALS PROVIDED PEER ASSESSMENTS ON ALL POLICE OFFICER AND CORPORAL PERSONNEL WORKING AT THE PATROL LEVEL IN A MUNICIPAL POLICE DEPARTMENT SERVING A MEDIUM-SIZE SOUTHEASTERN CITY. OVERALL, 256 POLICE OFFICERS AND 35 CORPORALS WERE ASSESSED BY FELLOW OFFICERS USING AT LEAST ONE OF THE THREE TECHNIQUES. THE PEER RANKINGS WERE THEN COMPARED WITH FORMAL EVALUATIONS BY THE RESPONSIBLE POLICE SERGEANTS. ALL THREE PEER ASSESSMENT METHODS AGREED CLOSELY WITH THE RANKING AND RATING PROVIDED BY THE SQUAD SERGEANT. HOWEVER, PEER RANKING REVEALED A SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER CORRELATION THAN EITHER PEER NOMINATION OR PEER RATING. PEER ASSESSMENTS ALSO CORRELATED HIGHLY WITH AWARDS RECEIVED AND THE NUMBER OF ON-THE-JOB INJURIES SUSTAINED. ALL METHODS SHOWED CONSISTENCY WHEN ASSESSING THE SAME OFFICER. THOSE PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY WERE MILDLY NEGATIVE TOWARDS ALL THREE PEER ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES. ADDITIONALLY, MEASURES OF FRIENDSHIP DID NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT ON THE EVALUATIONS. THE PEER AND SUPERVISOR ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS ARE APPENDED, AND TABULAR DATA AND OVER 90 REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED.