Immigrants from Morocco vs Bhutanese Ambulatory Disability
COMPARE
Immigrants from Morocco
Bhutanese
Ambulatory Disability
Ambulatory Disability Comparison
Immigrants from Morocco
Bhutanese
5.8%
AMBULATORY DISABILITY
97.3/ 100
METRIC RATING
106th/ 347
METRIC RANK
5.8%
AMBULATORY DISABILITY
98.8/ 100
METRIC RATING
89th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Immigrants from Morocco vs Bhutanese Ambulatory Disability Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 178,910,370 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Morocco and percentage of population with ambulatory disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.269 and weighted average of 5.8%. Similarly, 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%, a difference of 1.2%.
Ambulatory Disability Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Immigrants from Morocco | Bhutanese |
| Minimum | 1.3% | 0.28% |
| Maximum | 12.4% | 14.0% |
| Range | 11.1% | 13.8% |
| Mean | 5.8% | 6.2% |
| Median | 5.6% | 5.7% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 4.8% | 5.0% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 6.0% | 7.0% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 1.3% | 2.0% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 2.5% | 2.1% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 2.4% | 2.1% |
Demographics Similar to Immigrants from Morocco and Bhutanese by Ambulatory Disability
In terms of ambulatory disability, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from Morocco are Uruguayan (5.8%, a difference of 0.050%), Immigrants from Czechoslovakia (5.8%, a difference of 0.070%), New Zealander (5.8%, a difference of 0.18%), Immigrants from Romania (5.8%, a difference of 0.24%), and Immigrants from Kenya (5.8%, a difference of 0.31%). Similarly, 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 Chile (5.8%, a difference of 0.16%), and Immigrants from Sierra Leone (5.8%, a difference of 0.17%).
| 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% |