Australian vs Latvian Ambulatory Disability
COMPARE
Australian
Latvian
Ambulatory Disability
Ambulatory Disability Comparison
Australians
Latvians
5.8%
AMBULATORY DISABILITY
98.8/ 100
METRIC RATING
90th/ 347
METRIC RANK
5.7%
AMBULATORY DISABILITY
99.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
86th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Australian vs Latvian Ambulatory Disability Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 224,102,055 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Australians and percentage of population with ambulatory disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.102 and weighted average of 5.8%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 220,706,558 people shows a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of Latvians and percentage of population with ambulatory disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.491 and weighted average of 5.7%, a difference of 0.23%.
Ambulatory Disability Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Australian | Latvian |
| Minimum | 2.5% | 0.23% |
| Maximum | 15.8% | 28.4% |
| Range | 13.3% | 28.1% |
| Mean | 6.9% | 7.3% |
| Median | 6.1% | 5.9% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 5.1% | 4.8% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 7.8% | 9.6% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 2.7% | 4.8% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 3.0% | 4.6% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 3.0% | 4.6% |
Demographics Similar to Australians and Latvians by Ambulatory Disability
In terms of ambulatory disability, the demographic groups most similar to Australians are Bhutanese (5.8%, a difference of 0.0%), Immigrants from Sudan (5.8%, a difference of 0.0%), Soviet Union (5.8%, a difference of 0.12%), Immigrants from Chile (5.8%, a difference of 0.16%), and Immigrants from Sierra Leone (5.8%, a difference of 0.17%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Latvians are South American (5.7%, a difference of 0.030%), Immigrants from Chile (5.8%, a difference of 0.060%), Soviet Union (5.8%, a difference of 0.11%), Bhutanese (5.8%, a difference of 0.23%), and Immigrants from Sudan (5.8%, a difference of 0.23%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Ambulatory Disability |
| Somalis | 99.2 /100 | #78 | Exceptional 5.7% |
| Chileans | 99.2 /100 | #79 | Exceptional 5.7% |
| Immigrants | Ireland | 99.2 /100 | #80 | Exceptional 5.7% |
| Immigrants | Jordan | 99.2 /100 | #81 | Exceptional 5.7% |
| Palestinians | 99.2 /100 | #82 | Exceptional 5.7% |
| Eastern Europeans | 99.2 /100 | #83 | Exceptional 5.7% |
| Ugandans | 99.2 /100 | #84 | Exceptional 5.7% |
| South Americans | 99.0 /100 | #85 | Exceptional 5.7% |
| Latvians | 99.0 /100 | #86 | Exceptional 5.7% |
| Immigrants | Chile | 98.9 /100 | #87 | Exceptional 5.8% |
| Soviet Union | 98.9 /100 | #88 | Exceptional 5.8% |
| Bhutanese | 98.8 /100 | #89 | Exceptional 5.8% |
| Australians | 98.8 /100 | #90 | Exceptional 5.8% |
| Immigrants | Sudan | 98.8 /100 | #91 | Exceptional 5.8% |
| Immigrants | Sierra Leone | 98.6 /100 | #92 | Exceptional 5.8% |
| Immigrants | Denmark | 98.6 /100 | #93 | Exceptional 5.8% |
| Kenyans | 98.4 /100 | #94 | Exceptional 5.8% |
| Immigrants | El Salvador | 98.4 /100 | #95 | Exceptional 5.8% |
| Salvadorans | 98.4 /100 | #96 | Exceptional 5.8% |
| Immigrants | Somalia | 98.3 /100 | #97 | Exceptional 5.8% |
| Immigrants | Lebanon | 98.3 /100 | #98 | Exceptional 5.8% |