Ute vs Subsaharan African Vision Disability
COMPARE
Ute
Subsaharan African
Vision Disability
Vision Disability Comparison
Ute
Sub-Saharan Africans
2.4%
VISION DISABILITY
0.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
267th/ 347
METRIC RANK
2.3%
VISION DISABILITY
0.5/ 100
METRIC RATING
248th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Ute vs Subsaharan African Vision Disability Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 55,653,653 people shows a mild negative correlation between the proportion of Ute and percentage of population with vision disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.323 and weighted average of 2.4%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 507,474,731 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Sub-Saharan Africans and percentage of population with vision disability in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.288 and weighted average of 2.3%, a difference of 2.2%.
Vision Disability Correlation Summary
Measurement | Ute | Subsaharan African |
Minimum | 1.2% | 0.34% |
Maximum | 7.6% | 9.3% |
Range | 6.4% | 9.0% |
Mean | 2.9% | 2.6% |
Median | 2.5% | 2.3% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 2.1% | 2.0% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 3.5% | 2.7% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 1.5% | 0.74% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 1.5% | 1.6% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 1.4% | 1.6% |
Demographics Similar to Ute and Sub-Saharan Africans by Vision Disability
In terms of vision disability, the demographic groups most similar to Ute are Mexican American Indian (2.4%, a difference of 0.010%), Immigrants from Jamaica (2.4%, a difference of 0.050%), Immigrants from Liberia (2.4%, a difference of 0.080%), Immigrants from Belize (2.4%, a difference of 0.20%), and Jamaican (2.4%, a difference of 0.46%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Sub-Saharan Africans are Liberian (2.3%, a difference of 0.010%), Guatemalan (2.3%, a difference of 0.020%), Bangladeshi (2.3%, a difference of 0.10%), Immigrants from Laos (2.4%, a difference of 0.21%), and Immigrants from Micronesia (2.4%, a difference of 0.53%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Vision Disability |
Guatemalans | 0.5 /100 | #247 | Tragic 2.3% |
Sub-Saharan Africans | 0.5 /100 | #248 | Tragic 2.3% |
Liberians | 0.5 /100 | #249 | Tragic 2.3% |
Bangladeshis | 0.5 /100 | #250 | Tragic 2.3% |
Immigrants | Laos | 0.4 /100 | #251 | Tragic 2.4% |
Immigrants | Micronesia | 0.3 /100 | #252 | Tragic 2.4% |
Japanese | 0.3 /100 | #253 | Tragic 2.4% |
Haitians | 0.3 /100 | #254 | Tragic 2.4% |
Immigrants | Guatemala | 0.3 /100 | #255 | Tragic 2.4% |
Immigrants | Haiti | 0.2 /100 | #256 | Tragic 2.4% |
West Indians | 0.2 /100 | #257 | Tragic 2.4% |
British West Indians | 0.2 /100 | #258 | Tragic 2.4% |
Whites/Caucasians | 0.2 /100 | #259 | Tragic 2.4% |
Belizeans | 0.2 /100 | #260 | Tragic 2.4% |
Fijians | 0.1 /100 | #261 | Tragic 2.4% |
Jamaicans | 0.1 /100 | #262 | Tragic 2.4% |
Immigrants | Belize | 0.1 /100 | #263 | Tragic 2.4% |
Immigrants | Liberia | 0.1 /100 | #264 | Tragic 2.4% |
Immigrants | Jamaica | 0.1 /100 | #265 | Tragic 2.4% |
Mexican American Indians | 0.1 /100 | #266 | Tragic 2.4% |
Ute | 0.1 /100 | #267 | Tragic 2.4% |