Pima vs Kiowa Vision Disability
COMPARE
Pima
 Kiowa
 Vision Disability
Vision Disability Comparison
Pima
Kiowa
3.3%
VISION DISABILITY
0.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
343rd/ 347
METRIC RANK
3.3%
VISION DISABILITY
0.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
341st/ 347
METRIC RANK
Pima vs Kiowa Vision Disability Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 61,535,675 people shows a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of Pima and percentage of population with vision disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.427 and weighted average of 3.3%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 56,085,396 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Kiowa and percentage of population with vision disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.294 and weighted average of 3.3%, a difference of 2.5%.
 
Vision Disability Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Pima | Kiowa | 
| Minimum | 1.0% | 1.6% | 
| Maximum | 21.0% | 15.0% | 
| Range | 20.0% | 13.4% | 
| Mean | 5.5% | 5.1% | 
| Median | 3.9% | 4.1% | 
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 2.9% | 3.2% | 
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 6.1% | 4.9% | 
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 3.3% | 1.7% | 
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 4.8% | 3.3% | 
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 4.7% | 3.2% | 
Demographics Similar to Pima and Kiowa by Vision Disability
In terms of vision disability, the demographic groups most similar to Pima are Pueblo (3.3%, a difference of 0.030%), Choctaw (3.3%, a difference of 1.1%), Lumbee (3.4%, a difference of 1.6%), Houma (3.4%, a difference of 3.3%), and Creek (3.2%, a difference of 3.9%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Kiowa are Choctaw (3.3%, a difference of 1.4%), Creek (3.2%, a difference of 1.4%), Tsimshian (3.2%, a difference of 1.6%), Chickasaw (3.2%, a difference of 2.3%), and Pueblo (3.3%, a difference of 2.5%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Vision Disability | 
| Yuman | 0.0 /100 | #328 | Tragic 3.0% | 
| Apache | 0.0 /100 | #329 | Tragic 3.0% | 
| Colville | 0.0 /100 | #330 | Tragic 3.0% | 
| Central American Indians | 0.0 /100 | #331 | Tragic 3.0% | 
| Seminole | 0.0 /100 | #332 | Tragic 3.1% | 
| Cajuns | 0.0 /100 | #333 | Tragic 3.1% | 
| Cheyenne | 0.0 /100 | #334 | Tragic 3.1% | 
| Navajo | 0.0 /100 | #335 | Tragic 3.1% | 
| Alaskan Athabascans | 0.0 /100 | #336 | Tragic 3.1% | 
| Dutch West Indians | 0.0 /100 | #337 | Tragic 3.2% | 
| Chickasaw | 0.0 /100 | #338 | Tragic 3.2% | 
| Tsimshian | 0.0 /100 | #339 | Tragic 3.2% | 
| Creek | 0.0 /100 | #340 | Tragic 3.2% | 
| Kiowa | 0.0 /100 | #341 | Tragic 3.3% | 
| Choctaw | 0.0 /100 | #342 | Tragic 3.3% | 
| Pima | 0.0 /100 | #343 | Tragic 3.3% | 
| Pueblo | 0.0 /100 | #344 | Tragic 3.3% | 
| Lumbee | 0.0 /100 | #345 | Tragic 3.4% | 
| Houma | 0.0 /100 | #346 | Tragic 3.4% | 
| Puerto Ricans | 0.0 /100 | #347 | Tragic 3.9% |