What is the test for admitting or denying an expert's opinion that defendant suffered from post traumatic stress disorder as a prisoner of war?

Relying on People v. Valdez (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 494, 510-511, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by failing to admit defendant's statements subject to a limiting instruction directing the jury not to consider his statements for the truth of the matters asserted, but only to show the basis of the expert's opinion. (Id. at pp. 509-510.) But as Valdez observed, it is for the trial court to assess the probative value of inadmissible material relied upon by an expert witness against the risk the jury might improperly consider the material as independent proof of the facts recited. (Id. at p. 510; see People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605, 617-619.) Here, the trial court permitted the expert to testify he based his opinion defendant suffered from PTSD, in part, on his interview with defendant. But the court acted within its discretion in precluding the expert from testifying about specific details, including that defendant told him he had suffered trauma as a prisoner of war, because the jury might improperly consider this matter as true.