Investigators hope to elicit disclosure or other case-related (informative) responses quickly when transitioning to the substantive phase of forensic interviews. Interviewing protocols suggest directly asking the child about the purpose of the interview to obtain early disclosure. However, interviewers sometimes rephrase scripted transition prompts, which has unknown consequences. The present study examined the effects that the first transition prompt phrasing and case-related variables have on the informativeness and rapidity of disclosure among a sample of 328 allegedly abused children who ultimately disclosed during a police interview. Regression models were fit and compared. Findings suggested that transition prompts that used what were 60% more likely to obtain informative responses than those that used why. Additionally, transition prompts that started with Do you know decreases by 91% the probability of obtaining immediate informative responses, compared with those phrased directly (e.g., “What have you come to talk to me today?”). Children in this sample produced equally informative responses to direct prompts and indirect Can you prompts. Further analyses showed that transition prompts phrased with why obtained disclosure later than those phrased with what. Moreover, children who are 8 years and older, as well those who engaged in a practice narrative, required half the number of substantive utterances to disclose compared with younger children. Overall, this research shows that there are some aspects within an interviewer’s control that are important to elicit case-related information and rapid disclosure in forensic interviews and should not be discretionary. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)