Central American vs Chickasaw Female Poverty
COMPARE
Central American
Chickasaw
Female Poverty
Female Poverty Comparison
Central Americans
Chickasaw
16.0%
FEMALE POVERTY
0.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
276th/ 347
METRIC RANK
15.9%
FEMALE POVERTY
0.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
270th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Central American vs Chickasaw Female Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 503,924,730 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Central Americans and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.554 and weighted average of 16.0%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 147,658,289 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.004 and weighted average of 15.9%, a difference of 0.70%.
Female Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | Central American | Chickasaw |
Minimum | 1.3% | 1.9% |
Maximum | 100.0% | 38.6% |
Range | 98.8% | 36.7% |
Mean | 20.2% | 18.1% |
Median | 16.9% | 17.3% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 14.3% | 14.6% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 22.2% | 20.7% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 7.9% | 6.1% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 12.8% | 5.9% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 12.8% | 5.9% |
Demographics Similar to Central Americans and Chickasaw by Female Poverty
In terms of female poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Central Americans are Immigrants from Barbados (16.0%, a difference of 0.13%), Barbadian (15.9%, a difference of 0.19%), Bangladeshi (16.0%, a difference of 0.19%), Belizean (15.9%, a difference of 0.20%), and Haitian (15.9%, a difference of 0.20%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Iroquois (15.8%, a difference of 0.26%), Immigrants from St. Vincent and the Grenadines (15.9%, a difference of 0.28%), Belizean (15.9%, a difference of 0.50%), Haitian (15.9%, a difference of 0.51%), and Barbadian (15.9%, a difference of 0.51%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Female Poverty |
Cherokee | 0.1 /100 | #263 | Tragic 15.6% |
Immigrants | Ecuador | 0.1 /100 | #264 | Tragic 15.6% |
Immigrants | Liberia | 0.1 /100 | #265 | Tragic 15.7% |
Immigrants | El Salvador | 0.1 /100 | #266 | Tragic 15.7% |
Sub-Saharan Africans | 0.1 /100 | #267 | Tragic 15.8% |
Immigrants | Nicaragua | 0.1 /100 | #268 | Tragic 15.8% |
Iroquois | 0.1 /100 | #269 | Tragic 15.8% |
Chickasaw | 0.1 /100 | #270 | Tragic 15.9% |
Immigrants | St. Vincent and the Grenadines | 0.0 /100 | #271 | Tragic 15.9% |
Belizeans | 0.0 /100 | #272 | Tragic 15.9% |
Haitians | 0.0 /100 | #273 | Tragic 15.9% |
Barbadians | 0.0 /100 | #274 | Tragic 15.9% |
Immigrants | Barbados | 0.0 /100 | #275 | Tragic 16.0% |
Central Americans | 0.0 /100 | #276 | Tragic 16.0% |
Bangladeshis | 0.0 /100 | #277 | Tragic 16.0% |
Immigrants | West Indies | 0.0 /100 | #278 | Tragic 16.1% |
Immigrants | Bahamas | 0.0 /100 | #279 | Tragic 16.1% |
Vietnamese | 0.0 /100 | #280 | Tragic 16.1% |
West Indians | 0.0 /100 | #281 | Tragic 16.1% |
Immigrants | Haiti | 0.0 /100 | #282 | Tragic 16.1% |
Immigrants | Cuba | 0.0 /100 | #283 | Tragic 16.1% |