Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) increase student engagement in scientific practices and empower students to generate novel findings. Previous studies have demonstrated that CUREs are more effective at enhancing students' motivations, attitudes, science identity development, and acquisition of science process skills than traditional (i.e., prescriptive) laboratory exercises. Historically, CUREs have adopted one of two structures--the "network" CURE, in which faculty nationwide are provided with training to implement a single CURE model (e.g., SEA-PHAGES), or the "independent" CURE, which is centered around an individual faculty member's research expertise. Although independent CUREs are quite common, few studies have examined the process for and impacts of scaling up an independent CURE for use in diverse institutional contexts. To address this gap, we employed a quasi-experimental mixed-methods design to evaluate how an independent CURE, the Tigriopus CURE, could be modified for implementation at a Hispanic-Serving Institution, a liberal arts college, and a women's college. Analysis of pre- and post-semester data revealed significant differences in CURE students' science identity development, experimental design skills, and motivations relative to a matched comparison group consisting of students enrolled in a traditional laboratory course. These findings highlight the effectiveness of independent CUREs as well as the utility of the Tigriopus CURE across institutional settings.