The study of investigating creativity in science contained two experimental studies. The main purposes of the studies were to develop a creativity test in a subject, chemistry, by using the Construct Map Method and use it to understand the profiles of creative students and scientists along with some other tests: the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Test: Verbal form (TTCT-V), the Gough Personality Scale, and the Activity Check List from Runco Creativity Assessment Battery (rCAB). The result from developing the Creativity Test in Chemistry (CTC) indicated that it measures two creative constructs: the qualities of fluency and association flexibility, with high reliability for the two constructs. All the items had acceptable weighted fit mean square values. In the second experiment, participants with high scores on the CTC tended to have high scores on the TTCT-V, according to the result of the cluster analysis. However, the low correlation between the two tests implied that even though the two tests claim to measure the same creative skills of fluency and flexibility, they did not measure the same things. The two-way ANOVA with levels of expertise and areas of science as independent variables and the scores on the CTC as the dependent variable also showed that participants in chemistry at all levels of expertise performed better than in other areas of science: physics and biology. In the chemistry major, the higher the level, the higher the scores earned. This indicated that both content knowledge and creative thinking were necessary to do well on a task of creativity in a specific domain, suggesting the importance of integrating creative thinking skills and content to nurture creativity in a domain subject. For this group of participants, the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of the Gough Scale suggested eight personality traits that they have in common: confidence, insight, sincerity, creativity, nonconformity, skepticism, humility, and narrow interests. There was no significant difference among activities related to science in which the three groups, high ability, competent ability, and low ability, were engaged. Since the participants in these groups were in science majors, their activity involvement might not have been different. However, there was a significant difference in a personality factor: skepticism between the competent and the low ability groups. This trait should be nurtured in scientifically gifted individuals.
