The Role of Wait Time During the Questioning of Children: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The benefits of wait time in classroom discourses have been well documented in the field of education since the 1970s. While current forensic interview guidelines recognize the importance of pauses, whether there is sufficient empirical evidence to inform wait time guidelines in the legal context remains unanswered. This systematic review aimed to synthesize and provide a holistic update on the available research on the role of wait time when questioning children and recommended future direction to develop wait time guidelines specific to child forensic interviews. Systematic searches were conducted using four databases (PsycINFO, MedLine, ERIC, and Scopus). A total of 3,953 unique articles were returned, following a title and abstract screening, 68 full texts were reviewed, and 26 (including five additional studies identified through a hand search) were included. Inclusion criteria were the study sample included children under 18, published a measure of wait time in a questioning context, and in English. Overall, most knowledge of wait time remains in the field of education. Natural wait time is short, but with training, extended wait time yields significant benefits for both child and adult talk. Only one study examined the role of wait time in the forensic interviewing setting where a 10-s wait time appears to be more productive than shorter pauses. Extended wait time is a promising and simple interviewing practice with the potential to facilitate children's disclosure. The current review is a call for research in the area as it pertains to forensic interviewing of children and youth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".