British vs Scottish Female Poverty
COMPARE
British
Scottish
Female Poverty
Female Poverty Comparison
British
Scottish
12.5%
FEMALE POVERTY
95.2/ 100
METRIC RATING
96th/ 347
METRIC RANK
12.5%
FEMALE POVERTY
94.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
105th/ 347
METRIC RANK
British vs Scottish Female Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 530,738,327 people shows a significant positive correlation between the proportion of British and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.656 and weighted average of 12.5%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 565,877,668 people shows a significant positive correlation between the proportion of Scottish and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.669 and weighted average of 12.5%, a difference of 0.59%.
Female Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | British | Scottish |
Minimum | 2.7% | 3.5% |
Maximum | 100.0% | 100.0% |
Range | 97.3% | 96.5% |
Mean | 18.5% | 23.6% |
Median | 12.4% | 13.6% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 9.8% | 10.7% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 16.6% | 28.8% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 6.8% | 18.1% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 18.3% | 23.5% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 18.1% | 23.4% |
Demographics Similar to British and Scottish by Female Poverty
In terms of female poverty, the demographic groups most similar to British are Australian (12.5%, a difference of 0.030%), Native Hawaiian (12.5%, a difference of 0.050%), Immigrants from South Africa (12.5%, a difference of 0.070%), Romanian (12.5%, a difference of 0.070%), and Immigrants from Indonesia (12.5%, a difference of 0.11%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Scottish are Palestinian (12.5%, a difference of 0.11%), Immigrants from Turkey (12.6%, a difference of 0.12%), Slavic (12.5%, a difference of 0.20%), Immigrants from China (12.5%, a difference of 0.22%), and Laotian (12.6%, a difference of 0.31%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Female Poverty |
Immigrants | Denmark | 95.8 /100 | #90 | Exceptional 12.4% |
Belgians | 95.8 /100 | #91 | Exceptional 12.4% |
Czechoslovakians | 95.7 /100 | #92 | Exceptional 12.4% |
Immigrants | Egypt | 95.5 /100 | #93 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Immigrants | Indonesia | 95.4 /100 | #94 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Immigrants | South Africa | 95.4 /100 | #95 | Exceptional 12.5% |
British | 95.2 /100 | #96 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Australians | 95.2 /100 | #97 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Native Hawaiians | 95.1 /100 | #98 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Romanians | 95.1 /100 | #99 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Immigrants | Latvia | 94.8 /100 | #100 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Tlingit-Haida | 94.8 /100 | #101 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Immigrants | China | 94.5 /100 | #102 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Slavs | 94.5 /100 | #103 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Palestinians | 94.3 /100 | #104 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Scottish | 94.1 /100 | #105 | Exceptional 12.5% |
Immigrants | Turkey | 93.8 /100 | #106 | Exceptional 12.6% |
Laotians | 93.4 /100 | #107 | Exceptional 12.6% |
Portuguese | 93.1 /100 | #108 | Exceptional 12.6% |
Immigrants | Zimbabwe | 93.1 /100 | #109 | Exceptional 12.6% |
Paraguayans | 93.0 /100 | #110 | Exceptional 12.6% |