For decades, the condition known as Nonverbal Learning Disability (NVLD) has occupied a confusing space in neurodevelopmental research and practice. While children with language-based learning difficulties are well recognized, those with strong verbal skills but deficits in visual-spatial reasoning, motor coordination or social-executive functioning have often been overlooked. According to recent estimates, NVLD affects roughly 3–4 % of youth in North America.

Now, a new study led by Amy Margolis, PhD, of The Ohio State University — in collaboration with researchers at the Child Mind Institute, is helping to clarify what NVLD is, how it presents, and what it means for diagnosis and care.

Why this matters

• Because NVLD remains an unofficial diagnosis, families and clinicians face inconsistent definitions, uncertain supports, and often delayed recognition.

• When children struggle with visual-spatial reasoning, motor integration, executive function or social problems—but their reading and verbal skills are intact—they may be misdiagnosed (or undiagnosed), leading to mismatched educational supports or mental-health care.

• A more differentiated understanding of NVLD aligns with the broader shift toward precision in neurodiversity-affirming practice: recognizing individual patterns of strengths and challenges rather than forcing everyone into a single label.

• For practitioners and social-impact innovators alike, this research underscores the importance of designing supports (educational, therapeutic, coaching) that reflect the heterogeneity of neurodivergent profiles.

Key research findings

• In a sample of 180 children (ages 6-17) who met research criteria for NVLD drawn from the Healthy Brain Network data, cluster-analysis identified four distinct profiles of NVLD.

• Profile 1: Broad visual-spatial deficits (low scores on Visual-Spatial Index (VSI) and Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI)), highest levels of inattention and aggression, and lowest reading comprehension. J

• Profile 2: Deficit in VSI only (visual-spatial construction) but no math problems, high anxiety rates, and the lowest rate of specific learning disorders (SLDs).

• Profile 3: Deficit in FRI (fluid reasoning) but better reading comprehension and higher VSI/VCI scores—so a mixed pattern of strengths and weaknesses.

• Profile 4: A group that technically met criteria but showed more diffuse, nonspecific weaknesses—not strongly visual-spatial. The authors point out this profile may prompt reconsideration of the criteria for NVLD.

• Across profiles, visual-spatial reasoning (VSI/FRI) was positively associated with functional domains including math, fine-motor skills, social ability and executive function. This reinforces the idea that visual-spatial weakness may be core but also cascades into other functional areas.

Implications for practice & innovation

• For Clinicians & Educators: When a child shows strong verbal skills but significant challenges in spatial, motor, or social-executive domains, consider a more nuanced assessment rather than lumping them into generic learning disorder categories. Visual-spatial testing, motor coordination screening and executive-function evaluation should be part of the picture.

• For Families: If your child has had “slipped through the cracks” because reading is fine and language seems intact—but they struggle with maps, puzzles, social cues, or coordination—these findings suggest you’re not alone, and more targeted evaluation might uncover meaningful patterns.

• For Social Impact & Design: Program designers (for education, youth mental health, coaching) should build supports that reflect heterogeneity. For example:

  • One child may need motor-integration and visuospatial training plus anxiety coaching (Profile 1)

  • Another may need fine-motor support plus math extension plus anxiety management (Profile 2)

  • Yet another may need fluid reasoning development plus reading enrichment (Profile 3)

  • A fourth might need broader remediation or monitoring (Profile 4)

• For Research & Policy: This study supports the push toward formalizing NVLD (or its successor nomenclature) as a recognized condition with distinct subtypes—potentially enabling better insurance coverage, standardized supports, and improved outcomes.

Challenges & Next Steps

• The study is cross-sectional (a snapshot in time) and based on a select sample; longitudinal work is needed to see how profiles evolve into adolescence and adulthood.

• Because NVLD is still unofficial (and definitions vary), there’s no universal diagnostic protocol or service pathway—advocacy is needed.

• Translating profiles into tailored interventions remains a next step: we know the profiles exist, but we need research on “which treatment works best for which profile”.

• For practitioners and innovators, designing systems that keep flexibility (not rigid categories) while harnessing these insights is the challenge.

Conclusion
The latest research on NVLD is transformative: it moves us beyond the “one-size-fits-all” label and toward nuanced, differentiated understanding of how children with strong verbal skills may still struggle significantly in other cognitive and functional domains. For families, clinicians, educators and innovators working in neurodiversity, learning differences or youth mental health, this means new opportunities: better-targeted assessment, more customized supports, and ultimately, more inclusive design.

As we continue to build tools, programs and policies for neurodivergent learners, recognizing the patterns behind the problem becomes just as important as recognizing the problem itself. The “profiles” model gives us a roadmap—but it’s up to us to translate it into practice.