Immigrants from Chile vs Uruguayan Ambulatory Disability
COMPARE
Immigrants from Chile
Uruguayan
Ambulatory Disability
Ambulatory Disability Comparison
Immigrants from Chile
Uruguayans
5.8%
AMBULATORY DISABILITY
98.9/ 100
METRIC RATING
87th/ 347
METRIC RANK
5.8%
AMBULATORY DISABILITY
97.2/ 100
METRIC RATING
107th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Immigrants from Chile vs Uruguayan Ambulatory Disability Correlation Chart
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%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 144,780,979 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Uruguayans and percentage of population with ambulatory disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.166 and weighted average of 5.8%, a difference of 1.4%.
Ambulatory Disability Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Immigrants from Chile | Uruguayan |
| Minimum | 2.4% | 2.9% |
| Maximum | 23.8% | 23.8% |
| Range | 21.4% | 20.9% |
| Mean | 6.8% | 6.9% |
| Median | 5.5% | 5.9% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 4.9% | 5.3% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 7.2% | 7.7% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 2.3% | 2.4% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 4.3% | 4.0% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 4.2% | 3.9% |
Demographics Similar to Immigrants from Chile and Uruguayans by Ambulatory Disability
In terms of ambulatory disability, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from Chile are Soviet Union (5.8%, a difference of 0.040%), Bhutanese (5.8%, a difference of 0.16%), Australian (5.8%, a difference of 0.16%), Immigrants from Sudan (5.8%, a difference of 0.17%), and Immigrants from Sierra Leone (5.8%, a difference of 0.33%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Uruguayans are Immigrants from Morocco (5.8%, a difference of 0.050%), Immigrants from Czechoslovakia (5.8%, a difference of 0.12%), New Zealander (5.8%, a difference of 0.23%), Immigrants from Romania (5.8%, a difference of 0.29%), and Immigrants from Kenya (5.8%, a difference of 0.36%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Ambulatory Disability |
| 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% |
| Immigrants | Northern Europe | 98.2 /100 | #99 | Exceptional 5.8% |
| Immigrants | Serbia | 97.9 /100 | #100 | Exceptional 5.8% |
| Immigrants | South America | 97.9 /100 | #101 | Exceptional 5.8% |
| Immigrants | Kenya | 97.8 /100 | #102 | Exceptional 5.8% |
| Immigrants | Romania | 97.7 /100 | #103 | Exceptional 5.8% |
| New Zealanders | 97.6 /100 | #104 | Exceptional 5.8% |
| Immigrants | Czechoslovakia | 97.4 /100 | #105 | Exceptional 5.8% |
| Immigrants | Morocco | 97.3 /100 | #106 | Exceptional 5.8% |
| Uruguayans | 97.2 /100 | #107 | Exceptional 5.8% |