Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS), which was developed as a therapeutic tool to assist mental health professionals, describes five stages or behaviors commonly found in or experienced by, children who have been sexually abused, including secrecy, helplessness, entrapment and accommodation, delayed disclosure, and retraction. (People v. Bowker (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 385 at p. 389, fn. 3, p. 392, fn. 8.) Evidence regarding CSAAS "'"is admissible solely for the purpose of showing that the victim's reactions as demonstrated by the evidence are not inconsistent with having been molested."' " (People v. Housley (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 947, 955 (Housley), quoting Bowker, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 394.) Such evidence, however, "is not admissible to prove that the complaining witness has in fact been sexually abused; it is admissible to rehabilitate such witness's credibility when the defendant suggests that the child's conduct after the incident--e.g., a delay in reporting--is inconsistent with his or her testimony claiming molestation." (People v. McAlpin (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1289 at p. 1300.) The expert testimony is "admissible for the limited purpose of disabusing a jury of misconceptions it might hold about how a child reacts to a molestation." (People v. Patino (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1737, 1744 (Patino).) Because particular aspects of CSAAS are as consistent with false testimony as true testimony, and there is a possibility that a jury could use the expert evidence to improperly infer that the abuse occurred, the admission of such evidence is subject to certain limitations. (People v. Housley (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 947 at p. 955; Bowker, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at pp. 393-394; People v. Patino (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1737 at p. 1744.) First, the CSAAS evidence must be addressed or tailored to some specific myth or misconceptions suggested by the evidence. (Housley, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 955.) Second, the jury must be admonished that the expert's testimony is not intended and should not be used to determine whether the victim's molestation claim is true, but is admissible solely to show that the victim's reactions are not inconsistent with having been molested. (Id. at pp. 955, 958-959.) "Identifying a 'myth' or 'misconception' has not been interpreted as requiring the prosecution to expressly state on the record the evidence which is inconsistent with the finding of molestation. It is sufficient if the victim's credibility is placed in issue due to . . . paradoxical behavior, including a delay in reporting a molestation. " (Patino, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1744-1745.) CSAAS testimony "is admissible to rehabilitate the complaining witness's credibility when the defendant suggests that the child's conduct after the incident--e.g., a delay in reporting--is inconsistent with his or her testimony claiming molestation." (McAlpin, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 1300.)