Malaysian vs Chickasaw Married-Couple Family Poverty
COMPARE
Malaysian
Chickasaw
Married-Couple Family Poverty
Married-Couple Family Poverty Comparison
Malaysians
Chickasaw
5.4%
MARRIED-COUPLE FAMILY POVERTY
29.5/ 100
METRIC RATING
193rd/ 347
METRIC RANK
5.8%
MARRIED-COUPLE FAMILY POVERTY
2.3/ 100
METRIC RATING
244th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Malaysian vs Chickasaw Married-Couple Family Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 224,983,530 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Malaysians and poverty level among married-couple families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.195 and weighted average of 5.4%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 147,342,221 people shows a slight positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level among married-couple families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.056 and weighted average of 5.8%, a difference of 8.2%.
Married-Couple Family Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Malaysian | Chickasaw |
| Minimum | 1.5% | 1.7% |
| Maximum | 17.9% | 17.6% |
| Range | 16.4% | 16.0% |
| Mean | 6.9% | 7.8% |
| Median | 5.9% | 7.0% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 4.8% | 5.5% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 9.1% | 9.6% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 4.2% | 4.1% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 3.5% | 3.4% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 3.4% | 3.3% |
Similar Demographics by Married-Couple Family Poverty
Demographics Similar to Malaysians by Married-Couple Family Poverty
In terms of married-couple family poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Malaysians are Cape Verdean (5.3%, a difference of 0.17%), Immigrants from Cabo Verde (5.3%, a difference of 0.19%), Immigrants from Israel (5.4%, a difference of 0.22%), Immigrants from the Azores (5.4%, a difference of 0.27%), and Ugandan (5.3%, a difference of 0.29%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Married-Couple Family Poverty |
| Hungarians | 34.7 /100 | #186 | Fair 5.3% |
| Immigrants | Albania | 33.8 /100 | #187 | Fair 5.3% |
| Israelis | 33.1 /100 | #188 | Fair 5.3% |
| South American Indians | 32.5 /100 | #189 | Fair 5.3% |
| Ugandans | 31.6 /100 | #190 | Fair 5.3% |
| Immigrants | Cabo Verde | 30.9 /100 | #191 | Fair 5.3% |
| Cape Verdeans | 30.7 /100 | #192 | Fair 5.3% |
| Malaysians | 29.5 /100 | #193 | Fair 5.4% |
| Immigrants | Israel | 27.8 /100 | #194 | Fair 5.4% |
| Immigrants | Azores | 27.5 /100 | #195 | Fair 5.4% |
| Spaniards | 27.4 /100 | #196 | Fair 5.4% |
| Liberians | 26.3 /100 | #197 | Fair 5.4% |
| Immigrants | Belarus | 26.2 /100 | #198 | Fair 5.4% |
| Uruguayans | 25.0 /100 | #199 | Fair 5.4% |
| Immigrants | Morocco | 24.3 /100 | #200 | Fair 5.4% |
Demographics Similar to Chickasaw by Married-Couple Family Poverty
In terms of married-couple family poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Somali (5.8%, a difference of 0.010%), Immigrants from Afghanistan (5.8%, a difference of 0.15%), Immigrants from Western Africa (5.8%, a difference of 0.17%), Immigrants from Panama (5.8%, a difference of 0.26%), and Fijian (5.8%, a difference of 0.28%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Married-Couple Family Poverty |
| Immigrants | South America | 3.1 /100 | #237 | Tragic 5.7% |
| Cherokee | 2.7 /100 | #238 | Tragic 5.8% |
| Venezuelans | 2.7 /100 | #239 | Tragic 5.8% |
| Fijians | 2.5 /100 | #240 | Tragic 5.8% |
| Immigrants | Panama | 2.5 /100 | #241 | Tragic 5.8% |
| Immigrants | Western Africa | 2.4 /100 | #242 | Tragic 5.8% |
| Somalis | 2.3 /100 | #243 | Tragic 5.8% |
| Chickasaw | 2.3 /100 | #244 | Tragic 5.8% |
| Immigrants | Afghanistan | 2.1 /100 | #245 | Tragic 5.8% |
| Immigrants | Venezuela | 1.8 /100 | #246 | Tragic 5.8% |
| Iraqis | 1.4 /100 | #247 | Tragic 5.9% |
| Cree | 1.2 /100 | #248 | Tragic 5.9% |
| Tsimshian | 1.1 /100 | #249 | Tragic 5.9% |
| Immigrants | Eritrea | 1.1 /100 | #250 | Tragic 5.9% |
| Immigrants | Ghana | 1.0 /100 | #251 | Tragic 5.9% |