This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.
Here's a plain English summary:
When an expert witness gives their opinion in court, they can base that opinion on facts or information they learned about, either by seeing it themselves or by being told about it before the hearing. This gives experts flexibility in how they form their conclusions.
The key point is that the information an expert relies on does not have to be something that could normally be shown as evidence in court. As long as other experts in that same field would normally use that type of information to reach conclusions, it counts. For example, a doctor might rely on lab reports, notes from other doctors, or patient histories, even if those documents themselves would not normally be allowed as evidence.
This rule matters because it lets experts testify based on real world professional practices. Experts often build their opinions using many sources, not just things that would pass strict evidence rules on their own. As long as the information is the kind experts in that field typically trust and use, the expert can rely on it to support their testimony.