“…However, Section 28 lawyers still predominantly asked recognition questions (i.e., prompts that are either closed‐ended or signal the desired response, such as option‐posing and suggestive prompts; Henderson et al., 2019a), and used proportionally more option‐posing prompts than their non‐Section 28 counterparts (Henderson et al., 2019a). This is problematic because researchers have identified “linguistically complex” (or “complex”) structures within recognition prompts [i.e., tagged, declaratives, “Do you remember” (DYR), and negative terms; see Table 1 for definitions and examples] that decrease children's comprehension and erode young witnesses' accuracy and productivity (Evans, Stolzenberg, & Lyon, 2017; Klemfuss, Quas, & Lyon, 2014). Thus, the current study evaluated whether Section 28 recognition prompts, and particularly prompts with suggestive content, were less linguistically complex than non‐Section 28 prompts, thereby improving the quality of questioning and, subsequently, the elicited testimony.…”