Burmese vs Tongan Ambulatory Disability
COMPARE
Burmese
Tongan
Ambulatory Disability
Ambulatory Disability Comparison
Burmese
Tongans
5.3%
AMBULATORY DISABILITY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
13th/ 347
METRIC RANK
5.4%
AMBULATORY DISABILITY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
23rd/ 347
METRIC RANK
Burmese vs Tongan Ambulatory Disability Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 465,101,003 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Burmese and percentage of population with ambulatory disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.013 and weighted average of 5.3%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 102,876,651 people shows a poor negative correlation between the proportion of Tongans and percentage of population with ambulatory disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.120 and weighted average of 5.4%, a difference of 1.9%.
Ambulatory Disability Correlation Summary
Measurement | Burmese | Tongan |
Minimum | 1.0% | 0.94% |
Maximum | 23.5% | 16.9% |
Range | 22.5% | 16.0% |
Mean | 5.3% | 5.8% |
Median | 4.7% | 5.4% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 3.8% | 4.5% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 5.3% | 6.5% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 1.5% | 1.9% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 3.2% | 2.5% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 3.2% | 2.5% |
Demographics Similar to Burmese and Tongans by Ambulatory Disability
In terms of ambulatory disability, the demographic groups most similar to Burmese are Immigrants from Eastern Asia (5.3%, a difference of 0.15%), Immigrants from China (5.3%, a difference of 0.48%), Okinawan (5.3%, a difference of 0.50%), Immigrants from Korea (5.2%, a difference of 0.81%), and Immigrants from Hong Kong (5.3%, a difference of 1.0%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Tongans are Immigrants from Israel (5.4%, a difference of 0.040%), Immigrants from Saudi Arabia (5.4%, a difference of 0.090%), Zimbabwean (5.4%, a difference of 0.17%), Immigrants from Nepal (5.4%, a difference of 0.20%), and Asian (5.4%, a difference of 0.36%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Ambulatory Disability |
Immigrants | South Central Asia | 100.0 /100 | #8 | Exceptional 5.1% |
Iranians | 100.0 /100 | #9 | Exceptional 5.1% |
Yup'ik | 100.0 /100 | #10 | Exceptional 5.2% |
Immigrants | Korea | 100.0 /100 | #11 | Exceptional 5.2% |
Okinawans | 100.0 /100 | #12 | Exceptional 5.3% |
Burmese | 100.0 /100 | #13 | Exceptional 5.3% |
Immigrants | Eastern Asia | 100.0 /100 | #14 | Exceptional 5.3% |
Immigrants | China | 100.0 /100 | #15 | Exceptional 5.3% |
Immigrants | Hong Kong | 100.0 /100 | #16 | Exceptional 5.3% |
Immigrants | Ethiopia | 100.0 /100 | #17 | Exceptional 5.4% |
Immigrants | Sri Lanka | 100.0 /100 | #18 | Exceptional 5.4% |
Indians (Asian) | 100.0 /100 | #19 | Exceptional 5.4% |
Ethiopians | 100.0 /100 | #20 | Exceptional 5.4% |
Immigrants | Kuwait | 100.0 /100 | #21 | Exceptional 5.4% |
Immigrants | Israel | 100.0 /100 | #22 | Exceptional 5.4% |
Tongans | 100.0 /100 | #23 | Exceptional 5.4% |
Immigrants | Saudi Arabia | 100.0 /100 | #24 | Exceptional 5.4% |
Zimbabweans | 100.0 /100 | #25 | Exceptional 5.4% |
Immigrants | Nepal | 100.0 /100 | #26 | Exceptional 5.4% |
Asians | 100.0 /100 | #27 | Exceptional 5.4% |
Cambodians | 100.0 /100 | #28 | Exceptional 5.4% |