Immigrants from Australia vs Burmese Ambulatory Disability
COMPARE
Immigrants from Australia
Burmese
Ambulatory Disability
Ambulatory Disability Comparison
Immigrants from Australia
Burmese
5.5%
AMBULATORY DISABILITY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
32nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
5.3%
AMBULATORY DISABILITY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
13th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Immigrants from Australia vs Burmese Ambulatory Disability Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 227,168,976 people shows a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Australia and percentage of population with ambulatory disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.427 and weighted average of 5.5%. Similarly, 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%, a difference of 3.3%.
Ambulatory Disability Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Immigrants from Australia | Burmese |
| Minimum | 1.0% | 1.0% |
| Maximum | 15.9% | 23.5% |
| Range | 14.9% | 22.5% |
| Mean | 6.8% | 5.3% |
| Median | 5.8% | 4.7% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 4.7% | 3.8% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 8.9% | 5.3% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 4.1% | 1.5% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 3.3% | 3.2% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 3.2% | 3.2% |
Demographics Similar to Immigrants from Australia and Burmese by Ambulatory Disability
In terms of ambulatory disability, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from Australia are Immigrants from Venezuela (5.4%, a difference of 0.17%), Immigrants from Turkey (5.4%, a difference of 0.19%), Immigrants from Iran (5.4%, a difference of 0.80%), Cambodian (5.4%, a difference of 0.91%), and Asian (5.4%, a difference of 0.96%). Similarly, 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 Hong Kong (5.3%, a difference of 1.0%), and Immigrants from Ethiopia (5.4%, a difference of 1.4%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Ambulatory Disability |
| 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% |
| Immigrants | Iran | 100.0 /100 | #29 | Exceptional 5.4% |
| Immigrants | Turkey | 100.0 /100 | #30 | Exceptional 5.4% |
| Immigrants | Venezuela | 100.0 /100 | #31 | Exceptional 5.4% |
| Immigrants | Australia | 100.0 /100 | #32 | Exceptional 5.5% |