Pima vs Tlingit-Haida Vision Disability
COMPARE
Pima
Tlingit-Haida
Vision Disability
Vision Disability Comparison
Pima
Tlingit-Haida
3.3%
VISION DISABILITY
0.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
343rd/ 347
METRIC RANK
2.9%
VISION DISABILITY
0.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
323rd/ 347
METRIC RANK
Pima vs Tlingit-Haida Vision Disability Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 61,535,675 people shows a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of Pima and percentage of population with vision disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.427 and weighted average of 3.3%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 60,836,708 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Tlingit-Haida and percentage of population with vision disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.261 and weighted average of 2.9%, a difference of 16.7%.
Vision Disability Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Pima | Tlingit-Haida |
| Minimum | 1.0% | 1.4% |
| Maximum | 21.0% | 7.5% |
| Range | 20.0% | 6.1% |
| Mean | 5.5% | 4.0% |
| Median | 3.9% | 3.7% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 2.9% | 2.8% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 6.1% | 5.3% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 3.3% | 2.5% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 4.8% | 1.7% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 4.7% | 1.7% |
Demographics Similar to Pima and Tlingit-Haida by Vision Disability
In terms of vision disability, the demographic groups most similar to Pima are Choctaw (3.3%, a difference of 1.1%), Kiowa (3.3%, a difference of 2.5%), Creek (3.2%, a difference of 3.9%), Tsimshian (3.2%, a difference of 4.1%), and Chickasaw (3.2%, a difference of 4.8%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Tlingit-Haida are Hopi (2.9%, a difference of 2.0%), Cherokee (2.9%, a difference of 2.0%), Spanish American (2.9%, a difference of 3.2%), Native/Alaskan (3.0%, a difference of 4.0%), and Yuman (3.0%, a difference of 4.6%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Vision Disability |
| Tlingit-Haida | 0.0 /100 | #323 | Tragic 2.9% |
| Hopi | 0.0 /100 | #324 | Tragic 2.9% |
| Cherokee | 0.0 /100 | #325 | Tragic 2.9% |
| Spanish Americans | 0.0 /100 | #326 | Tragic 2.9% |
| Natives/Alaskans | 0.0 /100 | #327 | Tragic 3.0% |
| Yuman | 0.0 /100 | #328 | Tragic 3.0% |
| Apache | 0.0 /100 | #329 | Tragic 3.0% |
| Colville | 0.0 /100 | #330 | Tragic 3.0% |
| Central American Indians | 0.0 /100 | #331 | Tragic 3.0% |
| Seminole | 0.0 /100 | #332 | Tragic 3.1% |
| Cajuns | 0.0 /100 | #333 | Tragic 3.1% |
| Cheyenne | 0.0 /100 | #334 | Tragic 3.1% |
| Navajo | 0.0 /100 | #335 | Tragic 3.1% |
| Alaskan Athabascans | 0.0 /100 | #336 | Tragic 3.1% |
| Dutch West Indians | 0.0 /100 | #337 | Tragic 3.2% |
| Chickasaw | 0.0 /100 | #338 | Tragic 3.2% |
| Tsimshian | 0.0 /100 | #339 | Tragic 3.2% |
| Creek | 0.0 /100 | #340 | Tragic 3.2% |
| Kiowa | 0.0 /100 | #341 | Tragic 3.3% |
| Choctaw | 0.0 /100 | #342 | Tragic 3.3% |
| Pima | 0.0 /100 | #343 | Tragic 3.3% |