Immigrants from Lithuania vs Zimbabwean Vision Disability
COMPARE
Immigrants from Lithuania
Zimbabwean
Vision Disability
Vision Disability Comparison
Immigrants from Lithuania
Zimbabweans
1.9%
VISION DISABILITY
99.9/ 100
METRIC RATING
24th/ 347
METRIC RANK
2.0%
VISION DISABILITY
99.7/ 100
METRIC RATING
39th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Immigrants from Lithuania vs Zimbabwean Vision Disability Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 117,709,578 people shows a moderate negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Lithuania and percentage of population with vision disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.405 and weighted average of 1.9%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 69,201,681 people shows a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of Zimbabweans and percentage of population with vision disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.487 and weighted average of 2.0%, a difference of 2.2%.
Vision Disability Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Immigrants from Lithuania | Zimbabwean |
| Minimum | 0.53% | 0.38% |
| Maximum | 3.1% | 6.8% |
| Range | 2.6% | 6.4% |
| Mean | 1.7% | 2.1% |
| Median | 1.7% | 2.0% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 1.3% | 1.4% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 2.0% | 2.5% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 0.69% | 1.2% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 0.59% | 1.1% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 0.58% | 1.1% |
Demographics Similar to Immigrants from Lithuania and Zimbabweans by Vision Disability
In terms of vision disability, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from Lithuania are Bulgarian (1.9%, a difference of 0.040%), Immigrants from Japan (1.9%, a difference of 0.080%), Immigrants from Asia (1.9%, a difference of 0.12%), Taiwanese (1.9%, a difference of 0.41%), and Immigrants from Malaysia (1.9%, a difference of 0.44%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Zimbabweans are Immigrants from Kuwait (2.0%, a difference of 0.060%), Bhutanese (2.0%, a difference of 0.090%), Immigrants from Ireland (2.0%, a difference of 0.20%), Cypriot (2.0%, a difference of 0.22%), and Cambodian (2.0%, a difference of 0.34%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Vision Disability |
| Turks | 100.0 /100 | #21 | Exceptional 1.9% |
| Immigrants | Pakistan | 100.0 /100 | #22 | Exceptional 1.9% |
| Immigrants | Asia | 99.9 /100 | #23 | Exceptional 1.9% |
| Immigrants | Lithuania | 99.9 /100 | #24 | Exceptional 1.9% |
| Bulgarians | 99.9 /100 | #25 | Exceptional 1.9% |
| Immigrants | Japan | 99.9 /100 | #26 | Exceptional 1.9% |
| Taiwanese | 99.9 /100 | #27 | Exceptional 1.9% |
| Immigrants | Malaysia | 99.9 /100 | #28 | Exceptional 1.9% |
| Egyptians | 99.9 /100 | #29 | Exceptional 1.9% |
| Immigrants | Nepal | 99.9 /100 | #30 | Exceptional 1.9% |
| Mongolians | 99.9 /100 | #31 | Exceptional 1.9% |
| Luxembourgers | 99.9 /100 | #32 | Exceptional 1.9% |
| Immigrants | Egypt | 99.9 /100 | #33 | Exceptional 1.9% |
| Immigrants | Turkey | 99.8 /100 | #34 | Exceptional 1.9% |
| Immigrants | Australia | 99.8 /100 | #35 | Exceptional 1.9% |
| Cambodians | 99.8 /100 | #36 | Exceptional 2.0% |
| Bhutanese | 99.8 /100 | #37 | Exceptional 2.0% |
| Immigrants | Kuwait | 99.8 /100 | #38 | Exceptional 2.0% |
| Zimbabweans | 99.7 /100 | #39 | Exceptional 2.0% |
| Immigrants | Ireland | 99.7 /100 | #40 | Exceptional 2.0% |
| Cypriots | 99.7 /100 | #41 | Exceptional 2.0% |