EvalSmart drafts evaluation questions, indicators, qualitative inquiry protocols, and evidence gaps from plain language — with every item tagged as stated, inferred, or missing. AI drafts; the evaluator decides.
In plain terms: EvalSmart helps you figure out what to measure, how to measure it, what questions to ask stakeholders, and what information is missing — before you launch an evaluation.
EvalSmart designs the evaluation: the questions worth asking, the indicators and validated instruments to measure them, the qualitative inquiry that explains the numbers, and the gaps to resolve before measurement begins. The value is the encoded methodology — provenance discipline, real standards, and human review — not the language model underneath.
Each stage is checked for completeness and consistency before moving on. A full run takes a few minutes and yields two documents: a comprehensive plan and a one-page executive summary.
If you're staring at program goals and a deadline, wondering how to turn them into something measurable, EvalSmart gives you a structured, rigorous first draft to react to.
Teams preparing evaluation plans for clerkships, residencies, and LCME/ACGME review.
Programs that need to show consistent, equitable outcomes as they grow across affiliates.
Projects that need credible outcomes, indicators, and an evidence plan for funders.
Teams designing assessment and continuous-improvement (CQI) systems.
Practitioners who want a structured first draft before the stakeholder-review stage.
Anyone turning "we believe this works" into a plan that can actually prove it.
A four-stage pipeline. Each stage is checked for completeness and consistency before moving on, and two explicit human review points keep you in control of what gets produced.
Program description becomes a structured Case File — components, population, outcomes, assumptions.
⛬ Human Gate 1Indicator matrix with validated instruments, an analysis plan, and measurement considerations.
parallelInquiry plan: questions, interview guides, sampling, thematic approach, trustworthiness.
parallelA single package stamped DRAFT — REQUIRES HUMAN REVIEW, integrating both branches.
⛬ Human Gate 2A comprehensive audit-grade plan and a simplified executive view, organized by function.
This is the discipline that makes an AI-drafted plan trustworthy. Nothing is quietly invented — each element is one of three things, and the evaluator can see which at a glance.
Present in the program description. Drawn directly from what you provided — nothing added.
A professional suggestion from the AI, flagged for you to verify before relying on it.
Needed for a credible evaluation but absent — surfaced, never invented to fill the hole.
An evaluation plan is only useful if you can stand behind it. EvalSmart is built so you can — here's what that means in practice.
Every item is labeled by where it came from — stated in your description, a suggestion to confirm, or a gap that's missing. You're never handed a confident-sounding guess dressed up as fact.
You review and edit before anything is final. The plan is yours to own and defend — not something a machine hands you to rubber-stamp.
Standards and references point to the field's actual sources, or are clearly flagged for you to confirm. Nothing is made up to sound authoritative.
The plan is laid out so a colleague, funder, or reviewer can see exactly where every recommendation came from — and you get a dependable result each time.
EvalSmart speaks the language and frameworks of your field — undergraduate and graduate medical education today, with education and nonprofit settings expanding. Each field's standards are kept current and reviewed on a regular cadence, so your plan reflects what's actually expected now.
| Field | Standards | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Undergraduate medical education | LCME — 7 elements, verified | Available in prototype |
| Graduate medical education (residency) | ACGME Core Competencies + Milestones | Internal Medicine milestone mapping available |
| K-12 / education / NGO | ESSA / state frameworks | Vocabulary supported; standards require review |
References come only from official, authoritative sources — never second-hand copies — and anything that can't be verified is flagged for you rather than guessed.
EvalSmart organizes the plan into keystones — each pairing a quantitative measure with the qualitative inquiry that explains it. Below is one keystone from a real sample run on an Internal Medicine core clerkship.
Rater-level and site-level variance components in clinical evaluation scores, decomposing student vs. rater vs. site variance.
How do supervising attendings and residents interpret and apply the rating instrument — what mental models and reference points drive the scores they assign?
Every run also surfaces decisions and prerequisites (e.g. obtain IRB determination before qualitative collection) and a ranked list of top gaps (e.g. no baseline data, demographic linkage blocked by FERPA/IRB) — so the team knows exactly what to resolve before measurement begins.
In a case study evaluating a family-stability program scaling across 11 nonprofit affiliates in 16 cities, EvalSmart's keystone was a variance decomposition: of the differences in outcomes across affiliates, how much traces to the participant, the advocate, and the site? That turns "outcomes look different in different cities" into a measurable, answerable question — paired with an implementation-fidelity indicator and an equity disaggregation.
It grounded the design in the field's real frameworks — the Title IV-E Prevention Services Clearinghouse, Strengthening Families, and validated protective-factor instruments — and cited them without certifying or fabricating.
A research and evaluation professional with Ph.D. training in Evaluation and Measurement and applied experience designing assessment tools, surveys, interview protocols, logic models, indicator matrices, dashboards, and stakeholder-facing reports for higher education, education, workforce, and nonprofit programs. Skilled in mixed-methods research, user and participant needs assessment, data visualization, and translating complex findings into accessible recommendations for non-specialist audiences.
EvalSmart grew out of that practice — a service-oriented approach to building assessment capacity, maintaining reusable evidence resources, and using responsible AI-assisted workflows to support research, analysis, and documentation, all while preserving human judgment, source validation, and methodological rigor.
Start small with a fixed-price preview, or bring EvalSmart into a working session with your team.
Send a program description and receive a draft evaluation-plan preview: core evaluation questions, a sample indicator matrix, a qualitative inquiry angle, and your top evidence gaps.
Best for early-stage programs, grant drafts, course/clerkship reviews, or teams who need a structured starting point. Not a full evaluation report or data analysis.
Start with a $50 EvalSmart preview →For teams that need help clarifying evaluation questions, preparing for accreditation, reviewing existing measures, or turning program goals into a usable evaluation plan.
Book a consultation →Every preview is a human-reviewed draft stamped requires review — a fast, rigorous starting point, not a finished evaluation.
If you're not sure whether EvalSmart fits your program, accreditation timeline, or evaluation function, send a short note. I'll help you decide whether a preview or consultation is the right starting point.
Email Fangning →