Chickasaw vs Immigrants from El Salvador Female Poverty
COMPARE
Chickasaw
Immigrants from El Salvador
Female Poverty
Female Poverty Comparison
Chickasaw
Immigrants from El Salvador
15.9%
FEMALE POVERTY
0.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
270th/ 347
METRIC RANK
15.7%
FEMALE POVERTY
0.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
266th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from El Salvador Female Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 147,658,289 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.004 and weighted average of 15.9%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 357,675,141 people shows a strong positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from El Salvador and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.715 and weighted average of 15.7%, a difference of 1.1%.
Female Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Chickasaw | Immigrants from El Salvador |
| Minimum | 1.9% | 3.3% |
| Maximum | 38.6% | 100.0% |
| Range | 36.7% | 96.7% |
| Mean | 18.1% | 17.2% |
| Median | 17.3% | 14.8% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 14.6% | 12.0% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 20.7% | 18.3% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 6.1% | 6.3% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 5.9% | 11.7% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 5.9% | 11.6% |
Demographics Similar to Chickasaw and Immigrants from El Salvador by Female Poverty
In terms of female poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Iroquois (15.8%, a difference of 0.26%), Immigrants from St. Vincent and the Grenadines (15.9%, a difference of 0.28%), Belizean (15.9%, a difference of 0.50%), Haitian (15.9%, a difference of 0.51%), and Barbadian (15.9%, a difference of 0.51%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from El Salvador are Immigrants from Liberia (15.7%, a difference of 0.060%), Immigrants from Ecuador (15.6%, a difference of 0.36%), Subsaharan African (15.8%, a difference of 0.43%), Cherokee (15.6%, a difference of 0.49%), and Immigrants from Nicaragua (15.8%, a difference of 0.49%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Female Poverty |
| Shoshone | 0.1 /100 | #258 | Tragic 15.6% |
| Cape Verdeans | 0.1 /100 | #259 | Tragic 15.6% |
| Immigrants | Guyana | 0.1 /100 | #260 | Tragic 15.6% |
| Guyanese | 0.1 /100 | #261 | Tragic 15.6% |
| Mexican American Indians | 0.1 /100 | #262 | Tragic 15.6% |
| Cherokee | 0.1 /100 | #263 | Tragic 15.6% |
| Immigrants | Ecuador | 0.1 /100 | #264 | Tragic 15.6% |
| Immigrants | Liberia | 0.1 /100 | #265 | Tragic 15.7% |
| Immigrants | El Salvador | 0.1 /100 | #266 | Tragic 15.7% |
| Sub-Saharan Africans | 0.1 /100 | #267 | Tragic 15.8% |
| Immigrants | Nicaragua | 0.1 /100 | #268 | Tragic 15.8% |
| Iroquois | 0.1 /100 | #269 | Tragic 15.8% |
| Chickasaw | 0.1 /100 | #270 | Tragic 15.9% |
| Immigrants | St. Vincent and the Grenadines | 0.0 /100 | #271 | Tragic 15.9% |
| Belizeans | 0.0 /100 | #272 | Tragic 15.9% |
| Haitians | 0.0 /100 | #273 | Tragic 15.9% |
| Barbadians | 0.0 /100 | #274 | Tragic 15.9% |
| Immigrants | Barbados | 0.0 /100 | #275 | Tragic 16.0% |
| Central Americans | 0.0 /100 | #276 | Tragic 16.0% |
| Bangladeshis | 0.0 /100 | #277 | Tragic 16.0% |
| Immigrants | West Indies | 0.0 /100 | #278 | Tragic 16.1% |