Pima Births to Unmarried Women
COMPARE
Pima
Select to Compare
Births to Unmarried Women
Pima Births to Unmarried Women
51.5%
BIRTHS TO UNMARRIED WOMEN
0.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
343rd/ 347
METRIC RANK
Pima Births to Unmarried Women Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 60,986,588 people shows a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of Pima and percentage of births to unmarried women in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.496 and weighted average of 51.5%. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Pima within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.39% in percentage of births to unmarried women.
It is essential to understand that the correlation between the percentage of Pima and percentage of births to unmarried women does not imply a direct cause-and-effect relationship. It remains uncertain whether the presence of Pima influences an upward or downward trend in the level of percentage of births to unmarried women within an area, or if Pima simply ended up residing in those areas with higher or lower levels of percentage of births to unmarried women due to other factors.
Demographics Similar to Pima by Births to Unmarried Women
In terms of births to unmarried women, the demographic groups most similar to Pima are Navajo (51.5%, a difference of 0.040%), Menominee (51.1%, a difference of 0.70%), Inupiat (52.1%, a difference of 1.2%), Hopi (50.8%, a difference of 1.3%), and Tohono O'odham (49.8%, a difference of 3.3%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Births to Unmarried Women |
| Blacks/African Americans | 0.0 /100 | #333 | Tragic 44.3% |
| Yuman | 0.0 /100 | #334 | Tragic 44.4% |
| Colville | 0.0 /100 | #335 | Tragic 45.3% |
| Puerto Ricans | 0.0 /100 | #336 | Tragic 45.7% |
| Houma | 0.0 /100 | #337 | Tragic 46.6% |
| Arapaho | 0.0 /100 | #338 | Tragic 47.1% |
| Lumbee | 0.0 /100 | #339 | Tragic 48.2% |
| Tohono O'odham | 0.0 /100 | #340 | Tragic 49.8% |
| Hopi | 0.0 /100 | #341 | Tragic 50.8% |
| Menominee | 0.0 /100 | #342 | Tragic 51.1% |
| Pima | 0.0 /100 | #343 | Tragic 51.5% |
| Navajo | 0.0 /100 | #344 | Tragic 51.5% |
| Inupiat | 0.0 /100 | #345 | Tragic 52.1% |
| Pueblo | 0.0 /100 | #346 | Tragic 53.7% |
| Yup'ik | 0.0 /100 | #347 | Tragic 56.4% |
Pima Births to Unmarried Women Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Pima Data | Births to Unmarried Women Data |
| Minimum | 0.038% | 30.0% |
| Maximum | 87.0% | 100.0% |
| Range | 86.9% | 70.0% |
| Mean | 29.8% | 67.5% |
| Median | 6.5% | 64.6% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 2.5% | 38.1% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 77.4% | 100.0% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 74.9% | 61.9% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 36.4% | 28.2% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 35.4% | 27.5% |
Correlation Details
| Pima Percentile | Sample Size | Births to Unmarried Women |
[ 0.0% - 0.5% ] 0.038% | 60,085,025 | 34.0% |
[ 0.5% - 1.0% ] 0.71% | 474,830 | 43.4% |
[ 1.0% - 1.5% ] 1.10% | 217,441 | 41.4% |
[ 1.5% - 2.0% ] 1.66% | 55,929 | 34.8% |
[ 2.0% - 2.5% ] 2.23% | 48,596 | 31.9% |
[ 2.5% - 3.0% ] 2.76% | 5,078 | 75.4% |
[ 3.0% - 3.5% ] 3.23% | 4,335 | 65.8% |
[ 4.0% - 4.5% ] 4.15% | 5,594 | 100.0% |
[ 4.5% - 5.0% ] 4.99% | 51,096 | 54.1% |
[ 5.5% - 6.0% ] 5.94% | 1,178 | 33.3% |
[ 7.0% - 7.5% ] 7.01% | 1,370 | 100.0% |
[ 11.0% - 11.5% ] 11.29% | 17,659 | 30.0% |
[ 12.5% - 13.0% ] 12.92% | 387 | 100.0% |
[ 48.0% - 48.5% ] 48.39% | 965 | 100.0% |
[ 75.5% - 76.0% ] 75.80% | 1,835 | 100.0% |
[ 78.5% - 79.0% ] 78.99% | 2,713 | 80.4% |
[ 79.0% - 79.5% ] 79.26% | 4,538 | 61.2% |
[ 83.0% - 83.5% ] 83.14% | 4,139 | 100.0% |
[ 85.5% - 86.0% ] 85.85% | 615 | 63.4% |
[ 86.5% - 87.0% ] 86.98% | 3,265 | 100.0% |