Recent calls for reform have advocated for extensive changes to undergraduate science lab experiences, namely providing more authentic research experiences for students. Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) have attempted to eschew the limitations of traditional "cookbook" laboratory exercises and have received increasing visibility in the literature. However, evaluating the outcomes of these experiences remains inconsistent and incomplete partly because of differing goals and conceptual frameworks on the part of those both teaching and assessing the courses. This paper synthesizes existing literature on CUREs and assessment practices to propose a framework for how researchers and practitioners may better align the goals and evaluation practices of CUREs in order to provide a more consistent view of these reformed laboratory courses for the field.