Czechoslovakian vs Turkish Married-Couple Family Poverty
COMPARE
Czechoslovakian
Turkish
Married-Couple Family Poverty
Married-Couple Family Poverty Comparison
Czechoslovakians
Turks
4.4%
MARRIED-COUPLE FAMILY POVERTY
99.7/ 100
METRIC RATING
58th/ 347
METRIC RANK
4.3%
MARRIED-COUPLE FAMILY POVERTY
99.7/ 100
METRIC RATING
49th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Czechoslovakian vs Turkish Married-Couple Family Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 364,959,932 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Czechoslovakians and poverty level among married-couple families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.270 and weighted average of 4.4%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 270,078,353 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Turks and poverty level among married-couple families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.361 and weighted average of 4.3%, a difference of 0.82%.
Married-Couple Family Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Czechoslovakian | Turkish |
| Minimum | 1.3% | 0.78% |
| Maximum | 21.7% | 16.2% |
| Range | 20.4% | 15.5% |
| Mean | 6.9% | 4.6% |
| Median | 4.9% | 3.6% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 4.2% | 2.6% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 7.7% | 4.9% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 3.6% | 2.4% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 4.9% | 3.6% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 4.8% | 3.5% |
Demographics Similar to Czechoslovakians and Turks by Married-Couple Family Poverty
In terms of married-couple family poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Czechoslovakians are Immigrants from Zimbabwe (4.3%, a difference of 0.090%), Immigrants from Netherlands (4.3%, a difference of 0.090%), French (4.3%, a difference of 0.24%), Austrian (4.3%, a difference of 0.27%), and Welsh (4.3%, a difference of 0.53%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Turks are Australian (4.3%, a difference of 0.080%), Burmese (4.3%, a difference of 0.10%), Immigrants from Lithuania (4.3%, a difference of 0.11%), Russian (4.3%, a difference of 0.13%), and Immigrants from South Central Asia (4.3%, a difference of 0.15%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Married-Couple Family Poverty |
| Swiss | 99.8 /100 | #43 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Immigrants | Japan | 99.8 /100 | #44 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Serbians | 99.8 /100 | #45 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| British | 99.8 /100 | #46 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Immigrants | South Central Asia | 99.8 /100 | #47 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Australians | 99.7 /100 | #48 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Turks | 99.7 /100 | #49 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Burmese | 99.7 /100 | #50 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Immigrants | Lithuania | 99.7 /100 | #51 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Russians | 99.7 /100 | #52 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Welsh | 99.7 /100 | #53 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Austrians | 99.7 /100 | #54 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| French | 99.7 /100 | #55 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Immigrants | Zimbabwe | 99.7 /100 | #56 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Immigrants | Netherlands | 99.7 /100 | #57 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Czechoslovakians | 99.7 /100 | #58 | Exceptional 4.4% |
| Immigrants | Sweden | 99.6 /100 | #59 | Exceptional 4.4% |
| Tlingit-Haida | 99.6 /100 | #60 | Exceptional 4.4% |
| Okinawans | 99.6 /100 | #61 | Exceptional 4.4% |
| Immigrants | Australia | 99.6 /100 | #62 | Exceptional 4.4% |
| Immigrants | Sri Lanka | 99.6 /100 | #63 | Exceptional 4.4% |