Bhutanese vs Immigrants from Chile Ambulatory Disability
COMPARE
Bhutanese
Immigrants from Chile
Ambulatory Disability
Ambulatory Disability Comparison
Bhutanese
Immigrants from Chile
5.8%
AMBULATORY DISABILITY
98.8/ 100
METRIC RATING
89th/ 347
METRIC RANK
5.8%
AMBULATORY DISABILITY
98.9/ 100
METRIC RATING
87th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Bhutanese vs Immigrants from Chile Ambulatory Disability Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 455,305,094 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Bhutanese and percentage of population with ambulatory disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.248 and weighted average of 5.8%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 218,629,833 people shows a very strong positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Chile and percentage of population with ambulatory disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.824 and weighted average of 5.8%, a difference of 0.16%.
Ambulatory Disability Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Bhutanese | Immigrants from Chile |
| Minimum | 0.28% | 2.4% |
| Maximum | 14.0% | 23.8% |
| Range | 13.8% | 21.4% |
| Mean | 6.2% | 6.8% |
| Median | 5.7% | 5.5% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 5.0% | 4.9% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 7.0% | 7.2% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 2.0% | 2.3% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 2.1% | 4.3% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 2.1% | 4.2% |
Demographics Similar to Bhutanese and Immigrants from Chile by Ambulatory Disability
In terms of ambulatory disability, the demographic groups most similar to Bhutanese are Australian (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 Sierra Leone (5.8%, a difference of 0.17%), and Immigrants from Denmark (5.8%, a difference of 0.18%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from Chile are Soviet Union (5.8%, a difference of 0.040%), Latvian (5.7%, a difference of 0.060%), South American (5.7%, a difference of 0.090%), Australian (5.8%, a difference of 0.16%), and Immigrants from Sudan (5.8%, a difference of 0.17%).
| 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% |