The purpose of the current study was twofold: its first objective was to evaluate 151 Taiwanese high school students' creative process preferences using FourSight and its second, to assess the reliability and validity of FourSight's Chinese-language version. The results show that the highest proportion of our participants were high-Clarifiers (51%) and the lowest proportion, high-Ideators (28%), with high-Developers (32%) and high-Implementers (40%) occupying middle positions relative to the other two types. Our respondents may be influenced by the country's standardized-test-based educational system. Based on a series of factor analysis, our final 18-item Chinese-language version of FourSight with a five-factor construct was a reliable and valid measure, against the original 36-item English version with a four-factor construct. This discrepancy may have resulted from translation issues or cultural ones, or both. It is possible that the idea of CPS was itself quite new for our Taiwanese respondents.