High school students in accelerated curricula tend to report higher level of perceived stress compared to general education students, but often receive limited school support (Conger et al., 2021). This study explored student experiences of a targeted intervention using Motivational Interviewing (Motivation, Assessment, and Planning; MAP) compared to an Action Planning (AP) intervention through a randomized, within-subject design. Twenty ninth grade students enrolled in one advanced placement class who exhibited emotional and/or academic risks mid-year were assigned to initially receive either MAP or AP, and the other intervention second. Data collection occurred immediately after and approximately one month following each meeting. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test showed statistically significant increase in student-reported importance to change (S = 35.5, N = 20, p = 0.04) after MAP compared to AP, but with questionable clinical significance of small differences. Although there is a significant statistical difference in interventionist-reported therapeutic alliance (S = 95, N = 20, p < 0.001) favoring MAP, students reported similar increase in therapeutic alliance (S = -18.5, N = 20, p = 0.03) after both conditions. Students also reported similar increase in confidence to change (S = 1, N = 20, p = 0.99) and progress toward goals (S = -18, N = 20, p = 0.04) after experiencing both interventions. Findings from this study suggest that both MAP and AP have the potential to improve students' perceived importance and confidence to change, therapeutic alliance, and goal attainment. Qualitative analyses of written and verbal data provided support for high acceptability of both MAP and AP. The current study sheds light on the impact and acceptability of two targeted interventions appropriate for high school students in advanced placement classes.