In police interviews with child witnesses, ground rules like ‘correct me when I say something wrong’ are established. Establishing these ground rules is required by guidelines, with the aim of enhancing the reliability of children's testimonies. In this article, we use conversation analysis to examine how ground rules are practiced in thirty-eight Dutch police interviews with child witnesses. We focus on the police officers’ use of test questions to practice such ground rules. We found that, often, these questions (at first) only consist of an if-clause. Questions with this format leave open whose turn it is and what the appropriate response should be. If-clause questions allow flexibility in the difficulty of the test question, and a subtle pursuit of a response from the child. Yet, they are also treated as problematic by children, shown by silences and hesitations. Surprisingly, the practicing of ground rules sometimes occasions affiliation. (Police interviews, children, testing, practicing, affiliation, conversation analysis, hypothetical questions)*

警方在采访儿童证人时，制定了“当我说错时纠正我”等基本规则。准则要求制定这些基本规则，目的是提高儿童证词的可靠性。在本文中，我们使用对话分析来研究荷兰警方在 38 名儿童证人访谈中如何实践基本规则。我们重点关注警察如何使用测试题来练习这些基本规则。我们发现，这些问题（一开始）通常只包含if子句。这种格式的问题轮到谁以及适当的回答应该是什么。如果从句问题允许灵活调整测试问题的难度，并微妙地追求孩子的反应。然而，他们也被孩子们视为有问题的，表现为沉默和犹豫。令人惊讶的是，基本规则的实践有时会带来归属感。 （警察访谈、儿童、测试、练习、隶属关系、对话分析、假设问题）*