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.

学校心理学家定期进行功能行​​为评估 (FBA)，不过，大多数 FBA 是使用间接程序完成的，这不足以创建相对于实验措施的基于功能的干预，例如功能分析 (FA)。然而，传统的 FA 在学校环境中可能被认为是艰巨的。替代程序，如简要功能分析 (BFA) 和面试通知综合应急分析 (IISCA)，可能与 FA 一样有效且更有效率。探索这些程序的对应关系的研究有限。目前的研究对八名学龄儿童使用了交替治疗设计，以比较每项措施的控制和测试条件。受试者内方法也用于比较 BFA 和 IISCA 的结果。两项措施的对应率为 54.17%。平均对应产生超过一半，结果表明两种 FA 方法不能可靠地识别相同的功能。讨论了对实践的影响。