A randomized trial comparing the amount of knowledge orally recalled from four different presentations of the same consent information was conducted in a non-clinic sample of 233 low-income parents who displayed a range of reading comprehension skill. The study simulated recruitment of children into one of two actual studies underway at another location: one involved high risk to participants, the other did not. Use of a non-clinic sample controlled for prior knowledge of the conditions, and avoiding discussion of the information further assured that differences in recalled information could be attributed more confidently to the format itself. The formats included the original written forms, enhanced print (simpler language, topic headings, pictures), narrated videotapes, and self-paced PowerPoint presentations via laptop computer with bulleted print information, pictures, and narration. No format-related differences in recalled information were found in the full sample but for the 124 individuals with reading comprehension scores at or below the 8th grade level, the enhanced print version tended to be more effective than either the original form or the video. Across all formats, more information was recalled about the low-risk study. The findings emphasize the necessity for clinicians and researchers to verify understanding of consent information, especially when there is risk of reduced literacy skill. Reliance on video to convey information in preference to well-done print media appeared questionable.