Lithuanian vs Maltese Female Poverty
COMPARE
Lithuanian
Maltese
Female Poverty
Female Poverty Comparison
Lithuanians
Maltese
11.4%
FEMALE POVERTY
99.8/ 100
METRIC RATING
14th/ 347
METRIC RANK
11.2%
FEMALE POVERTY
99.9/ 100
METRIC RATING
11th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Lithuanian vs Maltese Female Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 421,598,229 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Lithuanians and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.034 and weighted average of 11.4%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 126,421,821 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Maltese and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.280 and weighted average of 11.2%, a difference of 1.4%.
Female Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | Lithuanian | Maltese |
Minimum | 1.0% | 0.74% |
Maximum | 27.5% | 37.5% |
Range | 26.5% | 36.8% |
Mean | 11.1% | 10.4% |
Median | 9.8% | 9.7% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 8.2% | 6.5% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 13.5% | 12.2% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 5.2% | 5.7% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 5.7% | 7.0% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 5.6% | 6.9% |
Demographics Similar to Lithuanians and Maltese by Female Poverty
In terms of female poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Lithuanians are Latvian (11.4%, a difference of 0.32%), Immigrants from Bolivia (11.5%, a difference of 0.80%), Bolivian (11.5%, a difference of 0.87%), Immigrants from Scotland (11.5%, a difference of 0.92%), and Immigrants from Lithuania (11.3%, a difference of 0.96%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Maltese are Immigrants from Hong Kong (11.2%, a difference of 0.11%), Bhutanese (11.3%, a difference of 0.46%), Immigrants from Lithuania (11.3%, a difference of 0.47%), Bulgarian (11.1%, a difference of 0.91%), and Immigrants from South Central Asia (11.1%, a difference of 1.1%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Female Poverty |
Chinese | 100.0 /100 | #2 | Exceptional 10.4% |
Thais | 100.0 /100 | #3 | Exceptional 10.5% |
Immigrants | Taiwan | 100.0 /100 | #4 | Exceptional 10.5% |
Filipinos | 100.0 /100 | #5 | Exceptional 10.9% |
Immigrants | Ireland | 99.9 /100 | #6 | Exceptional 11.0% |
Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs | 99.9 /100 | #7 | Exceptional 11.0% |
Immigrants | South Central Asia | 99.9 /100 | #8 | Exceptional 11.1% |
Bulgarians | 99.9 /100 | #9 | Exceptional 11.1% |
Immigrants | Hong Kong | 99.9 /100 | #10 | Exceptional 11.2% |
Maltese | 99.9 /100 | #11 | Exceptional 11.2% |
Bhutanese | 99.9 /100 | #12 | Exceptional 11.3% |
Immigrants | Lithuania | 99.9 /100 | #13 | Exceptional 11.3% |
Lithuanians | 99.8 /100 | #14 | Exceptional 11.4% |
Latvians | 99.8 /100 | #15 | Exceptional 11.4% |
Immigrants | Bolivia | 99.8 /100 | #16 | Exceptional 11.5% |
Bolivians | 99.8 /100 | #17 | Exceptional 11.5% |
Immigrants | Scotland | 99.8 /100 | #18 | Exceptional 11.5% |
Norwegians | 99.8 /100 | #19 | Exceptional 11.5% |
Eastern Europeans | 99.7 /100 | #20 | Exceptional 11.5% |
Italians | 99.7 /100 | #21 | Exceptional 11.6% |
Swedes | 99.7 /100 | #22 | Exceptional 11.6% |