Objectives: We compared two non-alternative methods to assess the readability and learning of easy-to-read educational health materials co-written by physicians, educators and citizens. Methods: Data from seven easy-to-read materials were analyzed. Readability formulae, and ad hoc data on readability and learning were also computed. Results: The respondents had a mean age of 48.5 [plus or minus] 8.3 (SD) years (range 31-57 years). More than two thirds of them were females. About half of the participants had a "secondary" education or more. According to the readability scores--54 on average--the booklets resulted to be "easy" for a reader who had received a "secondary education" or more. Of the 747 participants, 70% of them found the booklet's language to be "easy" or "very easy" and 28% "sufficiently easy" for laypersons to understand. About 98% of the readers found the booklets useful. After reading the booklet 92% ("simple knowledge rate") of the readers answered the cognitive items correctly. The after-minus-before net increase in knowledge was 24 [plus or minus] 16% and ranged from 8 to 40% ("cognitive or knowledge delta"). Conclusions: The availability of readability scores is complementary and it does not replace the need to assess readability and learning by means of structured and tailored questionnaires.