Mr Nishant Krishnan
1Swinburne University Centre For Forensic Behavioural Science, Australia, 2Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health, Australia
Biography:
Mr Krishnan is a doctoral candidate affiliated with the Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science at Swinburne University of Technology. His research interests lie in forensic mental health assessment, with a particular focus on evaluations of fitness to stand trial and criminal responsibility. His current doctoral research is centred on identifying empirically supported malingering screening measures appropriate for application within the Australian forensic context. Mr Krishnan has taught in forensic psychology and research methods, and has delivered clinical services across correctional, forensic, and community settings. He previously practised as a solicitor and brings an interdisciplinary perspective to his research and practice.
It is estimated that approximately 25% of accused individuals intentionally feign mental impairment during fitness to stand trial evaluations. Despite this, research shows that only 19% of fitness reports in Victoria explicitly consider the possibility of feigning. This presentation outlines findings from three thematically linked studies aimed at identifying feigning measures fit for use in Australian fitness evaluations. Studies 1 and 2 meta-analysed the extent to which two established measures: the Atypical Presentations (ATP) Scales and Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST), discriminate between honest responders and feigners within fitness evaluations. Thirteen studies yielding 18 effect sizes were identified (n = 1,872). Both the ATP Scales and M-FAST discriminated between honest responders and feigners. Among their respective subscales, ATP-Psychotic and Rare Combinations performed best. Using the manualised cut-scores, both measures demonstrated high sensitivity, and negative predictive power, with moderate positive predictive power. Specificity was high for the M-FAST and moderate for the ATP Scales. Findings from Studies 1 and 2 identified the ATP Scales as the most empirically supported candidate for further validation within the Australian context. Study 3 subsequently evaluated the diagnostic performance of the ATP Scales using a simulation paradigm (n = 85). Results indicated that the ATP Scales are effective at ruling out individuals who do not require further symptom validity testing. However, considering the high false positive rate (71%), positive results necessitate careful follow-up evaluation. Implications for using this tool in Australian fitness to stand trial evaluations, including interpretive caveats will be discussed.