testify in the form of an opinion, N.C.R. Evid. 702[;]... the expert may testify as to the facts or data forming the basis of her opinion, N.C.R. Evid. 703”; and the challenged testimony of the experts in that case, “if believed, could help the jury understand the behavior patterns of sexually abused children and assist it in assessing the credibility of the victim”). We, therefore, believe, and hold, that the Supreme Court’s requirement of a proper foundation addresses the question whether the expert witness possesses the necessary educational and experiential qualifications to testify regarding the characteristics of sexually-abused children and whether the complaining witness possessed those characteristics. See also State v. Ware, 188 N.C. App. 790, 798, 656 S.E.2d 662, 667 (2008) (<HOLDING>). Here, defendant does not dispute that Dr.
holding that proper foundation existed for qualified experts testimony regarding child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome where expert had extensive training and experience with sexually abused children expert testified regarding the characteristics of the syndrome and its recognition by specific agencies and defense counsel rigorously crossexamined witness concerning the basis of her knowledge of the victims conduct holding that expert was qualified to testify regarding sexuallyabused children based on witness education professional license and experience holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify holding that the trial court improperly allowed a hydrologist to testify regarding safe warehousing practices where he lacked the education employment or other practical experiences to testify as an expert holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify