Immigrants from Poland vs Sri Lankan Hearing Disability
COMPARE
Immigrants from Poland
Sri Lankan
Hearing Disability
Hearing Disability Comparison
Immigrants from Poland
Sri Lankans
2.9%
HEARING DISABILITY
70.2/ 100
METRIC RATING
156th/ 347
METRIC RANK
2.9%
HEARING DISABILITY
84.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
137th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Immigrants from Poland vs Sri Lankan Hearing Disability Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 304,813,024 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Poland and percentage of population with hearing disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.599 and weighted average of 2.9%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 440,283,716 people shows a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of Sri Lankans and percentage of population with hearing disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.407 and weighted average of 2.9%, a difference of 2.0%.
Hearing Disability Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Immigrants from Poland | Sri Lankan |
| Minimum | 0.95% | 1.0% |
| Maximum | 20.5% | 29.8% |
| Range | 19.6% | 28.7% |
| Mean | 4.7% | 4.0% |
| Median | 3.0% | 2.8% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 2.6% | 2.4% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 3.7% | 3.1% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 1.1% | 0.71% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 4.8% | 4.3% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 4.7% | 4.3% |
Demographics Similar to Immigrants from Poland and Sri Lankans by Hearing Disability
In terms of hearing disability, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from Poland are Costa Rican (2.9%, a difference of 0.14%), Immigrants from Lebanon (2.9%, a difference of 0.15%), Sudanese (2.9%, a difference of 0.23%), Immigrants from Lithuania (2.9%, a difference of 0.33%), and Immigrants from France (2.9%, a difference of 0.34%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Sri Lankans are Immigrants from Costa Rica (2.9%, a difference of 0.010%), Bermudan (2.9%, a difference of 0.050%), Immigrants from Jordan (2.9%, a difference of 0.070%), Immigrants from Brazil (2.9%, a difference of 0.10%), and Subsaharan African (2.9%, a difference of 0.14%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Hearing Disability |
| Immigrants | Brazil | 84.6 /100 | #136 | Excellent 2.9% |
| Sri Lankans | 84.1 /100 | #137 | Excellent 2.9% |
| Immigrants | Costa Rica | 84.0 /100 | #138 | Excellent 2.9% |
| Bermudans | 83.8 /100 | #139 | Excellent 2.9% |
| Immigrants | Jordan | 83.7 /100 | #140 | Excellent 2.9% |
| Sub-Saharan Africans | 83.3 /100 | #141 | Excellent 2.9% |
| Laotians | 81.1 /100 | #142 | Excellent 2.9% |
| Immigrants | Bahamas | 80.9 /100 | #143 | Excellent 2.9% |
| Immigrants | Bulgaria | 79.2 /100 | #144 | Good 2.9% |
| Immigrants | Congo | 78.9 /100 | #145 | Good 2.9% |
| Brazilians | 78.7 /100 | #146 | Good 2.9% |
| Tongans | 78.6 /100 | #147 | Good 2.9% |
| Immigrants | Russia | 77.7 /100 | #148 | Good 2.9% |
| Immigrants | Panama | 76.9 /100 | #149 | Good 2.9% |
| Palestinians | 73.6 /100 | #150 | Good 2.9% |
| Immigrants | France | 73.1 /100 | #151 | Good 2.9% |
| Immigrants | Lithuania | 73.0 /100 | #152 | Good 2.9% |
| Sudanese | 72.1 /100 | #153 | Good 2.9% |
| Immigrants | Lebanon | 71.5 /100 | #154 | Good 2.9% |
| Costa Ricans | 71.4 /100 | #155 | Good 2.9% |
| Immigrants | Poland | 70.2 /100 | #156 | Good 2.9% |