Background: Qualitative approaches offer tools to explore complex behaviors and perceptions, including those of researchers themselves. In recent years, the meta-research field has drawn on behavioral science to examine and improve research practices, employing frameworks such as COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation – Behavior), the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW), and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). While these frameworks have been applied in studies of researcher behavior, it remains unclear how they have been used to inform the development and validation of qualitative data collection instruments designed to assess researchers’ capability, opportunity, and motivation. Aim: To map and present the available information on tools developed to assess capability, opportunity, and motivation in qualitative studies concerning researcher behavior. Methods: A search strategy was developed following PRESS (Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies) principles and applied to the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science PsycINFO, CINAHL and ProQuest Theses and Dissertations, following the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Results: The applied search strategy resulted in 10,627 publications. After excluding duplicates and those not meeting the inclusion criteria, a total of 27 publications were obtained. 81.5% of studies were published open access and we gained access to 89% of data collection instruments. Most studies (93%) developed their data collection instrument, but only 35% mentioned any strategy for validation or pilot testing. All 27 studies used behavioral models in the development of data collection tools (guide/questionnaire), 85% used models to present results, 78% used them in the discussion and 59% presented the models in their theoretical framework. Discussion: We identified a significant movement toward the publicity of qualitative behavioral instruments, but still with significant limitations in transparency and theoretical application. These findings highlight the need for clearer guidelines on the design, reporting, and sharing of qualitative tools for behavioral research, as well as a stronger integration of behavioral theory and qualitative methodology. Conclusion: There is a growing sharing of qualitative behavioral instruments, but important limitations remain in the transparency and widespread dissemination in the integration of behavioral models. Presenting greater detail at all stages of the research could improve the assessment and re-use of existing tools. Registration: The study protocol was registered prior to data extraction and is available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4KWTD.