School Psychologists regularly conduct Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA), though, most FBA are completed using indirect procedures, which are inadequate for creating function-based interventions relative to experimental measures, such as functional analysis (FA). However, traditional FA may be considered arduous in the school setting. Alternative procedures like brief functional analysis (BFA) and interview informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA), may be as effective and more efficient than FA. Limited research exploring the correspondence of these procedures exists. The current study used an alternating treatment design across eight school aged children to compare control and test conditions for each measure. A within subjects approach was also used to compare the results of BFA and IISCA. Correspondence across the two measures was 54.17%. With average correspondence yielding just over half, the results indicate the two FA methods did not reliably identify the same function. Implications for practice are discussed.