Bhutanese vs New Zealander Ambulatory Disability
COMPARE
Bhutanese
New Zealander
Ambulatory Disability
Ambulatory Disability Comparison
Bhutanese
New Zealanders
5.8%
AMBULATORY DISABILITY
98.8/ 100
METRIC RATING
89th/ 347
METRIC RANK
5.8%
AMBULATORY DISABILITY
97.6/ 100
METRIC RATING
104th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Bhutanese vs New Zealander Ambulatory Disability Correlation Chart
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%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 106,904,660 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of New Zealanders and percentage of population with ambulatory disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.514 and weighted average of 5.8%, a difference of 0.99%.
Ambulatory Disability Correlation Summary
Measurement | Bhutanese | New Zealander |
Minimum | 0.28% | 1.5% |
Maximum | 14.0% | 17.7% |
Range | 13.8% | 16.2% |
Mean | 6.2% | 6.6% |
Median | 5.7% | 5.9% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 5.0% | 4.8% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 7.0% | 7.2% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 2.0% | 2.4% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 2.1% | 3.5% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 2.1% | 3.4% |
Demographics Similar to Bhutanese and New Zealanders by Ambulatory Disability
In terms of ambulatory disability, 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%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to New Zealanders are Immigrants from Romania (5.8%, a difference of 0.060%), Immigrants from Czechoslovakia (5.8%, a difference of 0.11%), Immigrants from Kenya (5.8%, a difference of 0.13%), Immigrants from Morocco (5.8%, a difference of 0.18%), and Immigrants from Serbia (5.8%, a difference of 0.21%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Ambulatory Disability |
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% |
Immigrants | Czechoslovakia | 97.4 /100 | #105 | Exceptional 5.8% |
Immigrants | Morocco | 97.3 /100 | #106 | Exceptional 5.8% |