Immigrants from Serbia vs Bhutanese Ambulatory Disability
COMPARE
Immigrants from Serbia
Bhutanese
Ambulatory Disability
Ambulatory Disability Comparison
Immigrants from Serbia
Bhutanese
5.8%
AMBULATORY DISABILITY
97.9/ 100
METRIC RATING
100th/ 347
METRIC RANK
5.8%
AMBULATORY DISABILITY
98.8/ 100
METRIC RATING
89th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Immigrants from Serbia vs Bhutanese Ambulatory Disability Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 131,742,099 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Serbia and percentage of population with ambulatory disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.244 and weighted average of 5.8%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 455,305,094 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Bhutanese and percentage of population with ambulatory disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.248 and weighted average of 5.8%, a difference of 0.77%.
Ambulatory Disability Correlation Summary
Measurement | Immigrants from Serbia | Bhutanese |
Minimum | 1.5% | 0.28% |
Maximum | 13.9% | 14.0% |
Range | 12.5% | 13.8% |
Mean | 6.2% | 6.2% |
Median | 5.8% | 5.7% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 5.1% | 5.0% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 7.1% | 7.0% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 2.0% | 2.0% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 2.3% | 2.1% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 2.3% | 2.1% |
Demographics Similar to Immigrants from Serbia and Bhutanese by Ambulatory Disability
In terms of ambulatory disability, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from Serbia are Immigrants from South America (5.8%, a difference of 0.0%), Immigrants from Kenya (5.8%, a difference of 0.080%), Immigrants from Romania (5.8%, a difference of 0.15%), Immigrants from Northern Europe (5.8%, a difference of 0.19%), and New Zealander (5.8%, a difference of 0.21%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Bhutanese are Australian (5.8%, a difference of 0.0%), Immigrants from Sudan (5.8%, a difference of 0.0%), Soviet Union (5.8%, a difference of 0.12%), Immigrants from Chile (5.8%, a difference of 0.16%), and Immigrants from Sierra Leone (5.8%, a difference of 0.17%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Ambulatory Disability |
Ugandans | 99.2 /100 | #84 | Exceptional 5.7% |
South Americans | 99.0 /100 | #85 | Exceptional 5.7% |
Latvians | 99.0 /100 | #86 | Exceptional 5.7% |
Immigrants | Chile | 98.9 /100 | #87 | Exceptional 5.8% |
Soviet Union | 98.9 /100 | #88 | Exceptional 5.8% |
Bhutanese | 98.8 /100 | #89 | Exceptional 5.8% |
Australians | 98.8 /100 | #90 | Exceptional 5.8% |
Immigrants | Sudan | 98.8 /100 | #91 | Exceptional 5.8% |
Immigrants | Sierra Leone | 98.6 /100 | #92 | Exceptional 5.8% |
Immigrants | Denmark | 98.6 /100 | #93 | Exceptional 5.8% |
Kenyans | 98.4 /100 | #94 | Exceptional 5.8% |
Immigrants | El Salvador | 98.4 /100 | #95 | Exceptional 5.8% |
Salvadorans | 98.4 /100 | #96 | Exceptional 5.8% |
Immigrants | Somalia | 98.3 /100 | #97 | Exceptional 5.8% |
Immigrants | Lebanon | 98.3 /100 | #98 | Exceptional 5.8% |
Immigrants | Northern Europe | 98.2 /100 | #99 | Exceptional 5.8% |
Immigrants | Serbia | 97.9 /100 | #100 | Exceptional 5.8% |
Immigrants | South America | 97.9 /100 | #101 | Exceptional 5.8% |
Immigrants | Kenya | 97.8 /100 | #102 | Exceptional 5.8% |
Immigrants | Romania | 97.7 /100 | #103 | Exceptional 5.8% |
New Zealanders | 97.6 /100 | #104 | Exceptional 5.8% |