Objective: To determine the reliability of the Brown Location Test paper and computer versions. Method: At a small, northeastern U.S. state university, twenty-two participants (mean age = 23.41, SD = 5.46; mean education = 15.93, SD = 1.20; 63.6% female) were administered a small battery of neuropsychological tests, which included both a paper and computer version of the Brown Location Test (BLT). The order and form of each of the paper and computer versions of the BLT were counterbalanced to account for practice effects, and they were administered two hours apart. Block Design and Matrix Reasoning subtests of the WAIS-IV were two of the other measures. Results: Initial analyses to see if the paper versions differed from each other demonstrated that there were not significant differences. The alternate versions of the computer-based administration were also not significantly different. Correlations between the paper versions and the computer-based versions were significant for all measures on the paper and computer versions. The correlations ranged from .51 to .77, which were all significant (p < .05). The Perceptual Reasoning Index calculated from the Block Design and Matrix Reasoning subtests of the WAIS-IV was also correlated significantly with both BLT paper and computer version recall and recognition scores. Conclusion: Given the relatively short interval between administrations, there may have been practice effects. The sample size was small, so more research looking at the alternate forms reliability of these different versions would be desirable. Implications and future directions will be discussed.