Turkish vs Chickasaw Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
COMPARE
Turkish
Chickasaw
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Comparison
Turks
Chickasaw
13.7%
CHILD POVERTY AMONG GIRLS UNDER 16
99.7/ 100
METRIC RATING
31st/ 347
METRIC RANK
19.6%
CHILD POVERTY AMONG GIRLS UNDER 16
0.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
262nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
Turkish vs Chickasaw Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 267,627,928 people shows a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of Turks and poverty level among girls under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.420 and weighted average of 13.7%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 146,952,830 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level among girls under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.542 and weighted average of 19.6%, a difference of 43.4%.
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Correlation Summary
Measurement | Turkish | Chickasaw |
Minimum | 0.50% | 3.8% |
Maximum | 71.9% | 100.0% |
Range | 71.4% | 96.2% |
Mean | 13.5% | 26.8% |
Median | 11.2% | 21.7% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 8.2% | 17.6% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 15.1% | 31.3% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 6.9% | 13.6% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 11.5% | 15.5% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 11.4% | 15.4% |
Similar Demographics by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
Demographics Similar to Turks by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
In terms of child poverty among girls under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Turks are Danish (13.7%, a difference of 0.040%), Swedish (13.7%, a difference of 0.070%), Asian (13.7%, a difference of 0.12%), Maltese (13.7%, a difference of 0.13%), and Bolivian (13.6%, a difference of 0.79%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 |
Immigrants | Eastern Asia | 99.9 /100 | #24 | Exceptional 13.4% |
Immigrants | China | 99.8 /100 | #25 | Exceptional 13.4% |
Eastern Europeans | 99.8 /100 | #26 | Exceptional 13.5% |
Latvians | 99.8 /100 | #27 | Exceptional 13.5% |
Tongans | 99.8 /100 | #28 | Exceptional 13.6% |
Bolivians | 99.8 /100 | #29 | Exceptional 13.6% |
Asians | 99.7 /100 | #30 | Exceptional 13.7% |
Turks | 99.7 /100 | #31 | Exceptional 13.7% |
Danes | 99.7 /100 | #32 | Exceptional 13.7% |
Swedes | 99.7 /100 | #33 | Exceptional 13.7% |
Maltese | 99.7 /100 | #34 | Exceptional 13.7% |
Immigrants | Northern Europe | 99.6 /100 | #35 | Exceptional 13.8% |
Russians | 99.6 /100 | #36 | Exceptional 13.9% |
Lithuanians | 99.6 /100 | #37 | Exceptional 13.9% |
Immigrants | Moldova | 99.6 /100 | #38 | Exceptional 13.9% |
Demographics Similar to Chickasaw by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
In terms of child poverty among girls under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar (19.7%, a difference of 0.12%), Jamaican (19.7%, a difference of 0.23%), Vietnamese (19.5%, a difference of 0.52%), Mexican American Indian (19.5%, a difference of 0.61%), and Immigrants from Jamaica (19.8%, a difference of 0.67%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 |
Immigrants | Ecuador | 0.3 /100 | #255 | Tragic 19.3% |
Trinidadians and Tobagonians | 0.2 /100 | #256 | Tragic 19.3% |
Guyanese | 0.2 /100 | #257 | Tragic 19.4% |
Salvadorans | 0.2 /100 | #258 | Tragic 19.4% |
Ottawa | 0.2 /100 | #259 | Tragic 19.4% |
Mexican American Indians | 0.2 /100 | #260 | Tragic 19.5% |
Vietnamese | 0.2 /100 | #261 | Tragic 19.5% |
Chickasaw | 0.1 /100 | #262 | Tragic 19.6% |
Immigrants | Burma/Myanmar | 0.1 /100 | #263 | Tragic 19.7% |
Jamaicans | 0.1 /100 | #264 | Tragic 19.7% |
Immigrants | Jamaica | 0.1 /100 | #265 | Tragic 19.8% |
Spanish Americans | 0.1 /100 | #266 | Tragic 19.8% |
Immigrants | Bangladesh | 0.1 /100 | #267 | Tragic 19.9% |
Spanish American Indians | 0.1 /100 | #268 | Tragic 19.9% |
Liberians | 0.1 /100 | #269 | Tragic 19.9% |