the abuse and offered various reasons an abused child would continue to cooperate with an abuser. Vaughn did not testify as to her opinion with respect to Bobby’s credibility. Evidence similar to that offered by Vaughn has been held admissible to assist the jury. See State v. Bailey, 89 N.C. App. 212, 365 S.E.2d 651 (1988) (finding expert testimony as to why a child would cooperate with adult who had been sexually abusing child admissible); State v. Richardson, 112 N.C. App. 58, 434 S.E.2d 657 (1993), disc. review denied, 335 N.C. 563, 441 S.E.2d 132 (1994) (concluding trial court did not err in admitting testimony describing general symptoms and characteristics of sexually abused children to explain the victim’s behavior); State v. Bowman, 84 N.C. App. 238, 352 S.E.2d 437 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Thus, for the foregoing reasons we hold that
holding that it was error to admit a videotaped interview of an alleged child victim of sexual abuse because the defendant was deprived of the right to crossexamine the child holding evidence of outofstate instances of abuse admissible in child sexual abuse case to show intent opportunity and relationship between defendant and victim holding trial court was proper in admitting a doctors testimony that a delay between the occurrence of an incident of child sexual abuse and the childs revelation of the incident was the usual pattern of conduct for victims of child sexual abuse holding that the trial court erred by admitting a doctors testimony that a child victims description of a sexual crime was very believable holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse  and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse