Yuman vs Chickasaw Vision Disability
COMPARE
Yuman
Chickasaw
Vision Disability
Vision Disability Comparison
Yuman
Chickasaw
3.0%
VISION DISABILITY
0.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
328th/ 347
METRIC RANK
3.2%
VISION DISABILITY
0.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
338th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Yuman vs Chickasaw Vision Disability Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 40,661,627 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Yuman and percentage of population with vision disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.367 and weighted average of 3.0%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 147,658,152 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and percentage of population with vision disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.299 and weighted average of 3.2%, a difference of 6.5%.
Vision Disability Correlation Summary
Measurement | Yuman | Chickasaw |
Minimum | 0.83% | 0.33% |
Maximum | 20.5% | 15.2% |
Range | 19.7% | 14.8% |
Mean | 4.7% | 5.4% |
Median | 3.0% | 4.6% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 2.2% | 3.5% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 4.6% | 6.3% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 2.4% | 2.9% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 5.0% | 2.8% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 4.9% | 2.8% |
Demographics Similar to Yuman and Chickasaw by Vision Disability
In terms of vision disability, the demographic groups most similar to Yuman are Apache (3.0%, a difference of 0.19%), Native/Alaskan (3.0%, a difference of 0.54%), Spanish American (2.9%, a difference of 1.3%), Colville (3.0%, a difference of 1.4%), and Central American Indian (3.0%, a difference of 2.1%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Tsimshian (3.2%, a difference of 0.69%), Creek (3.2%, a difference of 0.82%), Dutch West Indian (3.2%, a difference of 0.91%), Alaskan Athabascan (3.1%, a difference of 0.93%), and Navajo (3.1%, a difference of 1.1%).
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% |