Latvian vs Chinese Disability Age 35 to 64
COMPARE
Latvian
Chinese
Disability Age 35 to 64
Disability Age 35 to 64 Comparison
Latvians
Chinese
10.2%
DISABILITY AGE 35 TO 64
99.2/ 100
METRIC RATING
81st/ 347
METRIC RANK
10.3%
DISABILITY AGE 35 TO 64
98.7/ 100
METRIC RATING
95th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Latvian vs Chinese Disability Age 35 to 64 Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 220,634,735 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Latvians and percentage of population with a disability between the ages 34 and 64 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.106 and weighted average of 10.2%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 64,801,742 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Chinese and percentage of population with a disability between the ages 34 and 64 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.188 and weighted average of 10.3%, a difference of 1.2%.
Disability Age 35 to 64 Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Latvian | Chinese |
| Minimum | 1.5% | 4.2% |
| Maximum | 33.4% | 33.9% |
| Range | 31.8% | 29.7% |
| Mean | 11.2% | 12.1% |
| Median | 10.9% | 10.8% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 8.2% | 8.2% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 12.9% | 12.9% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 4.7% | 4.7% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 5.4% | 6.6% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 5.3% | 6.5% |
Demographics Similar to Latvians and Chinese by Disability Age 35 to 64
In terms of disability age 35 to 64, the demographic groups most similar to Latvians are Russian (10.2%, a difference of 0.060%), Immigrants from Brazil (10.2%, a difference of 0.070%), Immigrants from Croatia (10.2%, a difference of 0.10%), Sri Lankan (10.2%, a difference of 0.13%), and Immigrants from Vietnam (10.1%, a difference of 0.23%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Chinese are Immigrants from Italy (10.3%, a difference of 0.0%), Immigrants from North Macedonia (10.3%, a difference of 0.040%), Immigrants from Northern Africa (10.3%, a difference of 0.13%), Immigrants from South Africa (10.3%, a difference of 0.24%), and Immigrants from Denmark (10.3%, a difference of 0.42%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Disability Age 35 to 64 |
| Jordanians | 99.3 /100 | #78 | Exceptional 10.1% |
| Immigrants | Vietnam | 99.3 /100 | #79 | Exceptional 10.1% |
| Immigrants | Croatia | 99.3 /100 | #80 | Exceptional 10.2% |
| Latvians | 99.2 /100 | #81 | Exceptional 10.2% |
| Russians | 99.2 /100 | #82 | Exceptional 10.2% |
| Immigrants | Brazil | 99.2 /100 | #83 | Exceptional 10.2% |
| Sri Lankans | 99.2 /100 | #84 | Exceptional 10.2% |
| Immigrants | Kuwait | 99.1 /100 | #85 | Exceptional 10.2% |
| Immigrants | Europe | 99.1 /100 | #86 | Exceptional 10.2% |
| Nicaraguans | 99.1 /100 | #87 | Exceptional 10.2% |
| Chileans | 99.0 /100 | #88 | Exceptional 10.2% |
| Uruguayans | 99.0 /100 | #89 | Exceptional 10.2% |
| Afghans | 98.9 /100 | #90 | Exceptional 10.3% |
| Immigrants | Lebanon | 98.9 /100 | #91 | Exceptional 10.3% |
| Immigrants | Northern Africa | 98.7 /100 | #92 | Exceptional 10.3% |
| Immigrants | North Macedonia | 98.7 /100 | #93 | Exceptional 10.3% |
| Immigrants | Italy | 98.7 /100 | #94 | Exceptional 10.3% |
| Chinese | 98.7 /100 | #95 | Exceptional 10.3% |
| Immigrants | South Africa | 98.5 /100 | #96 | Exceptional 10.3% |
| Immigrants | Denmark | 98.4 /100 | #97 | Exceptional 10.3% |
| Immigrants | Uruguay | 98.3 /100 | #98 | Exceptional 10.3% |