Three thoughts:

1) Conceptually
On the one hand, we have a person's stated preference, when a person has a preference. (By analogy, a person might state a preference for natural fibers, such as wool.)

On another hand, we have others developing assessment tools to detect a preference when a person may be unaware of having a preference. (By analogy, a person might state no known preference for natural or man-made fibers, then might answer questions on a brief survey assessment tool, which subsequently indicates s/he has slight a preference for synthetic fibers such as polar fleece fabric.)

Thirdly, we have individuals assessing whether the preference (either known/stated or unknown/detected by assessment tool) translates to measurable efficiency/efficacy in their learning. (By analogy, individuals might spend time outdoors in cold weather, wearing garments of wool, of polar fleece, and of blended fibers... then be told that each garment resulted in them being equally warm. This revealed result would not negate the individual's fiber preference, if the individual had a fiber preference.)

Similarly, an individual might prefer wearing particular colors, and yet might provide equally engaging presentations regardless of whether s/he was wearing preferred colors, or non-preferred colors.

There is something to be said for the affective side, for the whole person, for respecting that individuals have preferences.

2) About the Meta-Analysis
Some may say that a shortcoming of the study went unnoticed. This was described as:
Originally Posted by blog post
... current (pre-1987) methods used to sort students into visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners do not adequately do so. Kavale and Forness found that many of the studies reported a large number of cases where “a subject not selected for a modality group actually scored higher than a subject selected on the bases of a modality strength.” This number was 1 in 5 students across all modalities (V, A, and K) and was 1 in 4 students for the kinesthetic group specifically. If these students really are being sorted according to their “learning style,” the authors argue that this is a large number of improperly sorted students. The authors conclude “… although modality assessments were presumed to differentiate subjects on the bases of modality preferences, there was, in actuality, considerable overlap between preference and non-preference groups.”
Additionally, some may say that using a blend of modalities in the control group may confound results. Specifically, if students better absorbed information presented in their preferred modality, then a control group might consist of presenting information devoid of the preferred modality. For example, comparing the learning of a person who prefers auditory information, under the circumstances of auditory presentation as compared/contrasted with solely visual/kinesthetic learning experiences.

3) Visual/Spatial learners and wiggly kids
If we set aside learning styles, how do we explain, categorize, label, relate to, and support visual-spatial learners?
If we set aside learning styles, how do we explain, categorize, label, relate to, and support wiggly (kinesthetic) kids?
Do we pathologize them?