Immigrants from Sudan vs Australian Ambulatory Disability
COMPARE
Immigrants from Sudan
Australian
Ambulatory Disability
Ambulatory Disability Comparison
Immigrants from Sudan
Australians
5.8%
AMBULATORY DISABILITY
98.8/ 100
METRIC RATING
91st/ 347
METRIC RANK
5.8%
AMBULATORY DISABILITY
98.8/ 100
METRIC RATING
90th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Immigrants from Sudan vs Australian Ambulatory Disability Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 118,955,409 people shows a slight negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Sudan and percentage of population with ambulatory disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.050 and weighted average of 5.8%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 224,102,055 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Australians and percentage of population with ambulatory disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.102 and weighted average of 5.8%, a difference of 0.0%.
Ambulatory Disability Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Immigrants from Sudan | Australian |
| Minimum | 2.1% | 2.5% |
| Maximum | 12.8% | 15.8% |
| Range | 10.7% | 13.3% |
| Mean | 5.8% | 6.9% |
| Median | 5.7% | 6.1% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 4.3% | 5.1% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 6.6% | 7.8% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 2.2% | 2.7% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 2.3% | 3.0% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 2.2% | 3.0% |
Demographics Similar to Immigrants from Sudan and Australians by Ambulatory Disability
In terms of ambulatory disability, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from Sudan are Bhutanese (5.8%, a difference of 0.0%), Soviet Union (5.8%, a difference of 0.12%), Immigrants from Chile (5.8%, a difference of 0.17%), Immigrants from Sierra Leone (5.8%, a difference of 0.17%), and Immigrants from Denmark (5.8%, a difference of 0.17%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Australians are Bhutanese (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%), Immigrants from Sierra Leone (5.8%, a difference of 0.17%), and Immigrants from Denmark (5.8%, a difference of 0.18%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Ambulatory Disability |
| 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% |
| Immigrants | Northern Europe | 98.2 /100 | #99 | Exceptional 5.8% |
| Immigrants | Serbia | 97.9 /100 | #100 | Exceptional 5.8% |