A direct comparison was made of the reliability and validity of the standard Matching Familiar Figures Test (MFF) to a recent longer version of the task (MFF20). Subjects comprised two samples of learning-disabled children, matched on age, sex, IQ, and SES. The Salkind and Wright (1977) formulation was used to generate continuous data, and IQ was statistically controlled. Internal reliability estimates showed the MFF20 to be more consistent that the standard version on both error and latency scores. Validity was addressed by comparing the two versions of the task in their ability to predict cognitive and behavioral skills of conceptual relevance to impulsivity. Results indicated that the MFF20 is a more sensitive predictor of academic achievement and attention as observed in a natural setting than is the standard version of the task.