Ugandan vs Immigrants from Chile Ambulatory Disability
COMPARE
Ugandan
Immigrants from Chile
Ambulatory Disability
Ambulatory Disability Comparison
Ugandans
Immigrants from Chile
5.7%
AMBULATORY DISABILITY
99.2/ 100
METRIC RATING
84th/ 347
METRIC RANK
5.8%
AMBULATORY DISABILITY
98.9/ 100
METRIC RATING
87th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Ugandan vs Immigrants from Chile Ambulatory Disability Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 94,018,396 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Ugandans and percentage of population with ambulatory disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.026 and weighted average of 5.7%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 218,629,833 people shows a very strong positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Chile and percentage of population with ambulatory disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.824 and weighted average of 5.8%, a difference of 0.33%.
Ambulatory Disability Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Ugandan | Immigrants from Chile |
| Minimum | 1.4% | 2.4% |
| Maximum | 14.2% | 23.8% |
| Range | 12.8% | 21.4% |
| Mean | 5.7% | 6.8% |
| Median | 5.5% | 5.5% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 4.6% | 4.9% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 7.1% | 7.2% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 2.5% | 2.3% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 2.4% | 4.3% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 2.3% | 4.2% |
Demographics Similar to Ugandans and Immigrants from Chile by Ambulatory Disability
In terms of ambulatory disability, the demographic groups most similar to Ugandans are Eastern European (5.7%, a difference of 0.0%), Palestinian (5.7%, a difference of 0.020%), Immigrants from Ireland (5.7%, a difference of 0.030%), Immigrants from Jordan (5.7%, a difference of 0.030%), and Chilean (5.7%, a difference of 0.16%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from Chile are Soviet Union (5.8%, a difference of 0.040%), Latvian (5.7%, a difference of 0.060%), South American (5.7%, a difference of 0.090%), Bhutanese (5.8%, a difference of 0.16%), and Australian (5.8%, a difference of 0.16%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Ambulatory Disability |
| Immigrants | South Africa | 99.3 /100 | #75 | Exceptional 5.7% |
| Sudanese | 99.3 /100 | #76 | Exceptional 5.7% |
| Immigrants | Vietnam | 99.3 /100 | #77 | Exceptional 5.7% |
| Somalis | 99.2 /100 | #78 | Exceptional 5.7% |
| Chileans | 99.2 /100 | #79 | Exceptional 5.7% |
| 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% |