Japanese vs Immigrants from Cambodia Ambulatory Disability
COMPARE
Japanese
Immigrants from Cambodia
Ambulatory Disability
Ambulatory Disability Comparison
Japanese
Immigrants from Cambodia
6.3%
AMBULATORY DISABILITY
12.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
213th/ 347
METRIC RANK
6.2%
AMBULATORY DISABILITY
21.5/ 100
METRIC RATING
200th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Japanese vs Immigrants from Cambodia Ambulatory Disability Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 249,121,214 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Japanese and percentage of population with ambulatory disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.193 and weighted average of 6.3%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 205,130,824 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Cambodia and percentage of population with ambulatory disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.114 and weighted average of 6.2%, a difference of 0.91%.
Ambulatory Disability Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Japanese | Immigrants from Cambodia |
| Minimum | 0.93% | 1.8% |
| Maximum | 18.5% | 37.9% |
| Range | 17.6% | 36.1% |
| Mean | 7.5% | 9.7% |
| Median | 6.5% | 6.9% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 5.8% | 5.9% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 7.7% | 11.3% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 1.9% | 5.4% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 3.7% | 7.6% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 3.7% | 7.4% |
Demographics Similar to Japanese and Immigrants from Cambodia by Ambulatory Disability
In terms of ambulatory disability, the demographic groups most similar to Japanese are Mexican American Indian (6.3%, a difference of 0.0%), Samoan (6.3%, a difference of 0.010%), Immigrants from Mexico (6.3%, a difference of 0.12%), Immigrants from Latin America (6.3%, a difference of 0.13%), and Canadian (6.3%, a difference of 0.14%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from Cambodia are Italian (6.2%, a difference of 0.080%), Immigrants from Central America (6.2%, a difference of 0.11%), Albanian (6.2%, a difference of 0.14%), Immigrants from Bangladesh (6.2%, a difference of 0.22%), and Immigrants from Ukraine (6.2%, a difference of 0.25%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Ambulatory Disability |
| Malaysians | 28.2 /100 | #196 | Fair 6.2% |
| Poles | 26.3 /100 | #197 | Fair 6.2% |
| Immigrants | Bangladesh | 24.6 /100 | #198 | Fair 6.2% |
| Italians | 22.6 /100 | #199 | Fair 6.2% |
| Immigrants | Cambodia | 21.5 /100 | #200 | Fair 6.2% |
| Immigrants | Central America | 20.1 /100 | #201 | Fair 6.2% |
| Albanians | 19.7 /100 | #202 | Poor 6.2% |
| Immigrants | Ukraine | 18.4 /100 | #203 | Poor 6.2% |
| Immigrants | Congo | 18.2 /100 | #204 | Poor 6.2% |
| Slovenes | 18.0 /100 | #205 | Poor 6.2% |
| Finns | 17.2 /100 | #206 | Poor 6.2% |
| Alsatians | 15.1 /100 | #207 | Poor 6.3% |
| Bangladeshis | 14.2 /100 | #208 | Poor 6.3% |
| Immigrants | Iraq | 14.0 /100 | #209 | Poor 6.3% |
| Immigrants | Laos | 13.2 /100 | #210 | Poor 6.3% |
| Samoans | 12.1 /100 | #211 | Poor 6.3% |
| Mexican American Indians | 12.0 /100 | #212 | Poor 6.3% |
| Japanese | 12.0 /100 | #213 | Poor 6.3% |
| Immigrants | Mexico | 11.0 /100 | #214 | Poor 6.3% |
| Immigrants | Latin America | 11.0 /100 | #215 | Poor 6.3% |
| Canadians | 10.9 /100 | #216 | Poor 6.3% |