Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Jordan Female Unemployment
COMPARE
Chickasaw
Immigrants from Jordan
Female Unemployment
Female Unemployment Comparison
Chickasaw
Immigrants from Jordan
5.1%
FEMALE UNEMPLOYMENT
83.2/ 100
METRIC RATING
138th/ 347
METRIC RANK
5.1%
FEMALE UNEMPLOYMENT
80.4/ 100
METRIC RATING
144th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Jordan Female Unemployment Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 147,184,773 people shows a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and unemploymnet rate among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.454 and weighted average of 5.1%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 181,116,498 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Jordan and unemploymnet rate among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.274 and weighted average of 5.1%, a difference of 0.29%.
Female Unemployment Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Chickasaw | Immigrants from Jordan |
| Minimum | 1.8% | 0.20% |
| Maximum | 20.0% | 11.7% |
| Range | 18.2% | 11.5% |
| Mean | 6.1% | 5.2% |
| Median | 5.2% | 4.9% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 3.7% | 3.9% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 7.0% | 5.9% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 3.3% | 2.0% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 3.8% | 2.4% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 3.8% | 2.4% |
Demographics Similar to Chickasaw and Immigrants from Jordan by Female Unemployment
In terms of female unemployment, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Immigrants from Eastern Asia (5.1%, a difference of 0.020%), Pakistani (5.1%, a difference of 0.060%), Immigrants from France (5.1%, a difference of 0.060%), Indian (Asian) (5.1%, a difference of 0.11%), and Immigrants from Latvia (5.1%, a difference of 0.15%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from Jordan are Immigrants from Kazakhstan (5.1%, a difference of 0.030%), Palestinian (5.1%, a difference of 0.040%), Immigrants from Oceania (5.2%, a difference of 0.090%), Immigrants from Norway (5.2%, a difference of 0.10%), and Immigrants from Eastern Europe (5.1%, a difference of 0.11%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Female Unemployment |
| Immigrants | Ethiopia | 85.4 /100 | #131 | Excellent 5.1% |
| Immigrants | Sri Lanka | 85.0 /100 | #132 | Excellent 5.1% |
| Immigrants | Hong Kong | 84.8 /100 | #133 | Excellent 5.1% |
| Immigrants | Eritrea | 84.6 /100 | #134 | Excellent 5.1% |
| Immigrants | Latvia | 84.6 /100 | #135 | Excellent 5.1% |
| Indians (Asian) | 84.2 /100 | #136 | Excellent 5.1% |
| Pakistanis | 83.8 /100 | #137 | Excellent 5.1% |
| Chickasaw | 83.2 /100 | #138 | Excellent 5.1% |
| Immigrants | Eastern Asia | 83.0 /100 | #139 | Excellent 5.1% |
| Immigrants | France | 82.7 /100 | #140 | Excellent 5.1% |
| Immigrants | Eastern Europe | 81.5 /100 | #141 | Excellent 5.1% |
| Palestinians | 80.8 /100 | #142 | Excellent 5.1% |
| Immigrants | Kazakhstan | 80.7 /100 | #143 | Excellent 5.1% |
| Immigrants | Jordan | 80.4 /100 | #144 | Excellent 5.1% |
| Immigrants | Oceania | 79.5 /100 | #145 | Good 5.2% |
| Immigrants | Norway | 79.4 /100 | #146 | Good 5.2% |
| Argentineans | 79.2 /100 | #147 | Good 5.2% |
| Immigrants | Argentina | 78.7 /100 | #148 | Good 5.2% |
| Asians | 78.3 /100 | #149 | Good 5.2% |
| Egyptians | 78.3 /100 | #150 | Good 5.2% |
| Immigrants | China | 75.9 /100 | #151 | Good 5.2% |