I have personal issues with that list, as people have used it through the years to try to tell me that my very-much-not-a-visual-spatial-kind-of-person son is "just a visual-spatial learner", primarily on the basis of him being wildly creative, terribly disorganized, having difficulties with math facts, and needing to use a keyboard to write. He's PG, AS, NVLD, and has a disorder of written expression, but he's not a visual-spatial learner!
At least half a dozen or more of the items on the "visual-spatial" side of that list are potential indicators of disabilities and problems with executive functioning that do not bear any relationship to having a preference for "thinking spatially". Another subset of the supposedly "visual-spatial" characteristics are general characteristics of the gifted. In fact, giftedness and creativity are even listed on the "visual-spatial" side. In a lot of ways, the left side of that list describes neuro-typical kids, and the right side of the list describes kids who are 2-E. I completely understand the neuro-diversity position, and I think that it is important to reframe challenges, emphasizing strengths. I just don't know that landing at "visual-spatial learner" is a terribly useful level of information to have when you are trying to develop interventions to help your child succeed, particularly if the things that really stand out on the list are not the exclusively visual and spatial items, but things like creativity, conceptual learning, disorganization, and poor handwriting, as with my son.
