Yes, there's been scientific tests. No, they did not support the propositions. However, some supporters of the propositions argue that existing empirical tests have methodological problems.
There's a discussion of scientific evaluation for NLP on wikipedia that cites several review articles.
Quoting the Heap (1988) review as quoted in Wikipedia:
Michael Heap (1988) conducted a systematic review of the research
literature on NLP and found that it was lacking in evidence.
The present author is satisfied that the assertions of NLP writers
concerning the representational systems have been objectively and
fairly investigated and found to be lacking. These assertions are
stated in unequivocal terms by the originators of NLP and it is clear
from their writings that phenomena such as representational systems,
predicate preferences and eye-movement patterns are claimed to be
potent psychological processes, easily and convincingly demonstrable
on training courses by tutors and trainees following simple
instructions, and, indeed, in interactions in everyday life. Adding,
Therefore, in view of the absence of any objective evidence provided
by the original proponents of the PRS hypothesis, and the failure of
subsequent empirical investigations to adequately support it, it may
well be appropriate now to conclude that there is not, and never has
been, any substance to the conjecture that people represent their
world internally in a preferred mode which may be inferred from their
choice of predicates and from their eye movements. […] These
conclusions, and the failure of investigators to convincingly
demonstrate the alleged benefits of predicate matching, seriously
question the role of such a procedure in counselling.
- Heap, M. (1988). Neuro-linguistic programming, In M. Heap (Ed.) Hypnosis: Current Clinical, Experimental and Forensic Practices. London: Croom Helm. FREE PDF